| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not
showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
As a workaround you can initiate the merge from Outlook by selecting your
Contacts folder or some contacts, and using the Outlook Tools-Mail Merge... option. Read the options in dialog box carefully! Also a. you get to use more of the data in the Contact this way than you do using the other method b. the field names you need to use in Word may be different from the ones that you need when you do it the other way. I don't know why the other method is not working in this case, but it does rely on a relatively complicated set of software components to get the data (it uses the Access/Jet OLE DB provider, and its special Outlook IISAM) and may fall foul of various Outlook and/or Windows configuration and security issues. For one thing, Outlook must be set up as the default program for email (not (just?) for Contacts as you might expect) in Control Panel-Internet options-Programs or IE-Tools-Internet Options-Programs, or the Vista equivalent. Peter Jamieson "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over
for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97
would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Russ,
In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#6
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Correction:
(Word could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#7
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
"The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct
procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#8
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only
*experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#9
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Thanks for posting back with your solution.
Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Scott M. wrote: The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#10
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies
however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#11
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Your welcome.
"Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Thanks for posting back with your solution. Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Scott M. wrote: The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#12
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise,
comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#13
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Yours qualifies however.
An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#14
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other
users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#15
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx What part of my saying that the above procedures were tried and failed didn't you get? 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. I do not accept that statement at all. You've provided no technical information to back that up and only provide as evidence, messages in a place that people who have problems post. What else do you expect? Message after message of people talking about their succes with Importing? As I stated in my last message, you have not provided any meaningful insight to anything relating to this issue other than, you're right, I'm wrong and because you said so. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. Hmmm. I don't care what you think. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#16
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
There is no reason to think that numbers 1, 2, 3, and 6 would be imported,
since they are items stored with Outlook, not your personal folders. By the way birthdays and anniversarries are imported when calendar items are included in the import. Perhaps you aren't doing it right. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#17
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
I certainly
see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. What is this? Experienced users know better. What is this? To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. |
|
#18
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
You never clarified what procedures you tried to migrate your PST file that
failed.When done correctly, PST files can readily be migrated from one installation to another. I'm sorry you failed to do so. If you need help, post in an Outlook group where you can get more opinions than mine. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx What part of my saying that the above procedures were tried and failed didn't you get? 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. I do not accept that statement at all. You've provided no technical information to back that up and only provide as evidence, messages in a place that people who have problems post. What else do you expect? Message after message of people talking about their succes with Importing? As I stated in my last message, you have not provided any meaningful insight to anything relating to this issue other than, you're right, I'm wrong and because you said so. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. Hmmm. I don't care what you think. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#19
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should
be. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#20
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
I did clarify what procedures I used and I did so several times, you just
keep ignoring it. It doesn't matter though because, at no point was I asking about how to do that. I know how to do it and despite your repeated warnings of "if not done right" or "when done correctly", it's not a complicated thing to do and that is not where the problem was at any rate (which I've stated several times). It's interesting that you continuously are bringing this up and that (below) you seem to have come to the conclusion that I did something wrong, when I've given you no indications of that. In fact, it's interesting that you are still offering advice, when I've not asked for any. By the time you joined the thread, I had already worked the the problem, cause, and solution. I'm all set. You can dispense your valuable advice to someone who needs it. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... You never clarified what procedures you tried to migrate your PST file that failed.When done correctly, PST files can readily be migrated from one installation to another. I'm sorry you failed to do so. If you need help, post in an Outlook group where you can get more opinions than mine. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx What part of my saying that the above procedures were tried and failed didn't you get? 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. I do not accept that statement at all. You've provided no technical information to back that up and only provide as evidence, messages in a place that people who have problems post. What else do you expect? Message after message of people talking about their succes with Importing? As I stated in my last message, you have not provided any meaningful insight to anything relating to this issue other than, you're right, I'm wrong and because you said so. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. Hmmm. I don't care what you think. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
|
#21
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a ..pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#22
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do so
successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other users. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#23
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
No, the problem was not in the tecnique, it was a problem with the file (as
stated numerous times). And in over 10 years of doing it like this, to have one circumstance that required a few hours of research is not the catastrophe you keep claiming it is. I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to, but Microsoft does recommend the procedure I used. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do so successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other users. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#24
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or
character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? Personally I would not have characterised your post as a flame, but I do not find it difficult to understand why Scott found it pretty irritating. FWIW, once I'd seen that the problem had been solved (or even if I thought it only looked as if it had been solved), and I believed that there was a better way to do the job, I /might/ have said something more like... "For a 97-2003 pst update, normally I would have suggested the process described at ref because it does this/doesn't suffer this problem/etc., so it would be helpful to know whether you tried that, and if so, what went wrong." That way, a. you have done the counterpoint job you want to do, whether or not anyone takes any notice or posts a response. b. there is no unnecessary suggestion that the poster has done the wrong thing, nor any implication that the standard procedure/software will /always/ do the right thing. In this particular case, I think it is also reasonable to say that even when the .pst is correctly set up (whatever that entails) and the Address Book correctly hooked up to any Contacts lists, it is not guaranteed that Word Mail Merge will actually be able to access the contacts (e.g. because there is a problem with the Jet provider or the Outlook/Exchange IISAM). Although that problem has nothing to do with the normal functioning of Outlook, it would still mean that "A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well" might not be true. c. if your posts get a response that describes a new twist, there are potential gains for everyone. Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? |
|
#25
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
The "we" is the Outlook MVP's after discussions with the Outlook Development
Team during the Outlook 2007 beta and after so many end users started reporting difficulties with both migrating and importing PST files. While the procedure you've been using worked fine in earlier Outlook versions, it has become problematic in later versions. The explanation we were given centers around 2 changes that have occurred over the years: 1. What is stored in the PST file and how it is stored (e.g., in hidden messages) has changed over the years, so now the import process may leave information and connections behind that create problems in the receiving PST file. 2. How and when a given profile creates its connection to a PST file has changed and may get disrupted during an import process or during file migration which corrupts the receiving profile. The problem has been acknowledged but we've been told that development resources simply haven't existed to address or fix them. Apparently, PST file connections are not a priority for development since they only affect stand alone end users, not Outlook's core users (Exchange clients). We have long requested that at least the documentation be changed to reflect what procedures are best for current versions, but it hasn't happened so far. So for the time being we recommend that users transfer data by opening the PST file in the receiving profile rather than importing it. If they want to transfer an entire PST file, they should copy it to any location that is not the default location for PST files (to prevent overwriting a PST file), open it in an existing profile, set it as the new default, then restart Outlook and close the PST file created by the profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... No, the problem was not in the tecnique, it was a problem with the file (as stated numerous times). And in over 10 years of doing it like this, to have one circumstance that required a few hours of research is not the catastrophe you keep claiming it is. I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to, but Microsoft does recommend the procedure I used. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do so successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other users. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#26
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
1. This particular case is not Outlook 2007, as was stated, it's Outlook
2003. But, I'm sorry I believe you are misunderstanding what was explained to you. There are LESS likely to be migration/import problems in newer verstions of Outlook, than with the older versions, meaning Outlook 2003 and 2007 are vastly more compatible than say Outlook 97 or 2000 with Outlook 2003. 2. The main compatibility issues between older version of Outlook (a la 97) and newer versions is that older versions encoded their data using the American National Standards Institue (ANSI) encoding scheme and newer versions encode using Unicode Text Format with 8 bits per character (UTF-8). 3. A secondary reason for incompatibilities is the changes in embedding technology over the years. Back in the days of Outlook 97, Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) was used very often when you wanted to copy data from one source application to another. This was repleaced by Obect Linking & Embedding (OLE), and then ActiveX. 4. The procedure you list at the bottom of your last post is EXACTLY what I've been describing. The only difference in my case(s) is that is is unnecessary to put the file in a different location and set it as the default because I intend for the file being copied in to replace entirely the existing one. If you place an existing .pst file called "outlook.pst" in the exact location of the automatically created one, there's nothing else you need to do. 5. While the MVP community certainly has something to contribute to this or any Microsoft product conversation, they are certainly not the last word on any Microsoft topic and *they* should know and understand that. Microsoft does recommend the usage of the Import option as a reliable way of bringing data from one .pst into another and in my VAST experience using it, I have found no reason whatsoever to dispute that. The *problems* that you've repeatedly warned about are much less likely a problem with the Import feature and much more likely problems relating to what I've mentioned in items 2 and 3 above. Again, you really haven't provided any technical information about what you are talking about, which leads me to belive that you don't have any. All you keep talking about is what you've heard. As someone who has been in IT for nearly 20 years, my experience is that when you don't fully understand something, it becomes easy to base your opinions on the anecdotal evidence of others,. who may know much less than you do. When you do understand how something works, it's much easier to work with it and understand how to get it to do what you want it to do. My problem in this case was that I had never had to have a 2003 product access a '97 file and after some simple research and reasoning discovered the simple answer that the software was not at fault, the file in question was. Simply, creating a new file with the 2003 software (so that the file structure would conform to the native format of the product in question), rather than persisting with the '97 file solves this issue. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... The "we" is the Outlook MVP's after discussions with the Outlook Development Team during the Outlook 2007 beta and after so many end users started reporting difficulties with both migrating and importing PST files. While the procedure you've been using worked fine in earlier Outlook versions, it has become problematic in later versions. The explanation we were given centers around 2 changes that have occurred over the years: 1. What is stored in the PST file and how it is stored (e.g., in hidden messages) has changed over the years, so now the import process may leave information and connections behind that create problems in the receiving PST file. 2. How and when a given profile creates its connection to a PST file has changed and may get disrupted during an import process or during file migration which corrupts the receiving profile. The problem has been acknowledged but we've been told that development resources simply haven't existed to address or fix them. Apparently, PST file connections are not a priority for development since they only affect stand alone end users, not Outlook's core users (Exchange clients). We have long requested that at least the documentation be changed to reflect what procedures are best for current versions, but it hasn't happened so far. So for the time being we recommend that users transfer data by opening the PST file in the receiving profile rather than importing it. If they want to transfer an entire PST file, they should copy it to any location that is not the default location for PST files (to prevent overwriting a PST file), open it in an existing profile, set it as the new default, then restart Outlook and close the PST file created by the profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... No, the problem was not in the tecnique, it was a problem with the file (as stated numerous times). And in over 10 years of doing it like this, to have one circumstance that required a few hours of research is not the catastrophe you keep claiming it is. I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to, but Microsoft does recommend the procedure I used. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do so successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other users. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#27
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Sorry I can't jump through your hoops of providing technical documentation
for the problems with Outlook data migration that we have seen, but it doesn't exist. For you to assume that the only problems that are real are those for which Microsoft provides documentation seems a bit naive to me. Microsoft tends not to document issues they consider minor and that they have no intention of correcting. I do know that the experience of the end user community has been remarkably reproducible and consistent with the problems we reported that were never fixed in the last beta. Outlook 2007 has become extremely intolerant of the PST file migration strategies that used to work well in older versions, including simply placing a file with the right name in the default location. Accordingly, that procedure in particular is no longer recommended. Apparently, most of the data migration problems arose because Outlook 2007 creates and connects to a data file much earlier in the profile creation process than in earlier versions. In addition, the Outlook Address Book Service can no longer be reset to use an imported data source in Outlook 2007. I'm sure you can imagine how much of a problem that creates for mail merging. Feel free to consider this information here say if you prefer, but its documentation would require that you have an NDA with Microsoft. On the contrary, we have seen no issues that you suggest might arise because of the change from ANSI to UNICODE. ANSI files remain perfectly compatible with newer versions. The bottom line is that data migration issues are far worse with newer versions than previous versions. While some if these issues weren't relevant to your particular situation with Outlook 2003, they are highly relevant to the user community at large because some of the solutions you propose are no longer considered best practice and may cause problems. It's fine if you want to chalk this up as undocumented ramblings from an idiot who obviously knows far less than you. But I'll continue to warn people about the potential pitfalls, as we do every day in the Outlook groups. Your comments about anecdote are well taken. The procedures you have always used still work well for you (except this last time). Fine. Is that not anecdote? But they no longer work well for a large number of other users. The experience of many is less anecdotal than the experience of one. Admittedly, newsgroup postings are not a reliable data source because of selection bias. As you aptly pointed out, users do not post what works well, only what doesn't. But clearly there are trends here that indicate a problem with Outlook data migration to which neither you nor I have the final answers. Thanks for the spirited debate. It was fun. Sorry you felt the need to include so many ad hominum comments in your replies. I did my best to avoid doing the same, but if I failed, I apologize. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... 1. This particular case is not Outlook 2007, as was stated, it's Outlook 2003. But, I'm sorry I believe you are misunderstanding what was explained to you. There are LESS likely to be migration/import problems in newer verstions of Outlook, than with the older versions, meaning Outlook 2003 and 2007 are vastly more compatible than say Outlook 97 or 2000 with Outlook 2003. 2. The main compatibility issues between older version of Outlook (a la 97) and newer versions is that older versions encoded their data using the American National Standards Institue (ANSI) encoding scheme and newer versions encode using Unicode Text Format with 8 bits per character (UTF-8). 3. A secondary reason for incompatibilities is the changes in embedding technology over the years. Back in the days of Outlook 97, Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) was used very often when you wanted to copy data from one source application to another. This was repleaced by Obect Linking & Embedding (OLE), and then ActiveX. 4. The procedure you list at the bottom of your last post is EXACTLY what I've been describing. The only difference in my case(s) is that is is unnecessary to put the file in a different location and set it as the default because I intend for the file being copied in to replace entirely the existing one. If you place an existing .pst file called "outlook.pst" in the exact location of the automatically created one, there's nothing else you need to do. 5. While the MVP community certainly has something to contribute to this or any Microsoft product conversation, they are certainly not the last word on any Microsoft topic and *they* should know and understand that. Microsoft does recommend the usage of the Import option as a reliable way of bringing data from one .pst into another and in my VAST experience using it, I have found no reason whatsoever to dispute that. The *problems* that you've repeatedly warned about are much less likely a problem with the Import feature and much more likely problems relating to what I've mentioned in items 2 and 3 above. Again, you really haven't provided any technical information about what you are talking about, which leads me to belive that you don't have any. All you keep talking about is what you've heard. As someone who has been in IT for nearly 20 years, my experience is that when you don't fully understand something, it becomes easy to base your opinions on the anecdotal evidence of others,. who may know much less than you do. When you do understand how something works, it's much easier to work with it and understand how to get it to do what you want it to do. My problem in this case was that I had never had to have a 2003 product access a '97 file and after some simple research and reasoning discovered the simple answer that the software was not at fault, the file in question was. Simply, creating a new file with the 2003 software (so that the file structure would conform to the native format of the product in question), rather than persisting with the '97 file solves this issue. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... The "we" is the Outlook MVP's after discussions with the Outlook Development Team during the Outlook 2007 beta and after so many end users started reporting difficulties with both migrating and importing PST files. While the procedure you've been using worked fine in earlier Outlook versions, it has become problematic in later versions. The explanation we were given centers around 2 changes that have occurred over the years: 1. What is stored in the PST file and how it is stored (e.g., in hidden messages) has changed over the years, so now the import process may leave information and connections behind that create problems in the receiving PST file. 2. How and when a given profile creates its connection to a PST file has changed and may get disrupted during an import process or during file migration which corrupts the receiving profile. The problem has been acknowledged but we've been told that development resources simply haven't existed to address or fix them. Apparently, PST file connections are not a priority for development since they only affect stand alone end users, not Outlook's core users (Exchange clients). We have long requested that at least the documentation be changed to reflect what procedures are best for current versions, but it hasn't happened so far. So for the time being we recommend that users transfer data by opening the PST file in the receiving profile rather than importing it. If they want to transfer an entire PST file, they should copy it to any location that is not the default location for PST files (to prevent overwriting a PST file), open it in an existing profile, set it as the new default, then restart Outlook and close the PST file created by the profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... No, the problem was not in the tecnique, it was a problem with the file (as stated numerous times). And in over 10 years of doing it like this, to have one circumstance that required a few hours of research is not the catastrophe you keep claiming it is. I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to, but Microsoft does recommend the procedure I used. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do so successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other users. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#28
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Sorry I can't jump through your hoops of providing technical documentation for the problems with Outlook data migration that we have seen, but it doesn't exist. I didn't ask for documentation of the problems, I asked for ANY bit of technical explanation for *problems* other than, "we've seen them". For you to assume that the only problems that are real are those for which Microsoft provides documentation seems a bit naive to me. Me too. Good thing that isn't what I said. Microsoft tends not to document issues they consider minor and that they have no intention of correcting. That's hardly true at all. Many times Microsoft will have a KB article with the sympton, cause, and indicate that there is no resolution at this time. They do not take the "if we can't / won't fix it we won't post information about it. I do know that the experience of the end user community has been remarkably reproducible and consistent with the problems we reported that were never fixed in the last beta. But that doesn't provide any insight as to the root cause, and to give advice on how to solve a problem that you aren't even sure what's causing is reckelss. Outlook 2007 has become extremely intolerant of the PST file migration strategies that used to work well in older versions, including simply placing a file with the right name in the default location. Again, I reject that statement. There is no technical evidence or any reasonable Outlook programming paradigm shift that indicates that statuement to be true. Accordingly, that procedure in particular is no longer recommended. By you. And this is where I think I have one of my biggest beefs (aside from your initial demeanour) with your posts. An MVP should not be making statements that to a newbie could be construed as the word from Microsoft. When you say *we* recommend, you are being very vauge as I'm sure I can find plenty of MVP's who disagree with your suggested plan of action. What's worse is that you, yourself actually suggested the exact same steps that you are now saying you don't recommend. In NG's please post your opinions as such, and not as any officially sanctioned steps. You are not in a position to make those kind of statements. Apparently, most of the data migration problems arose because Outlook 2007 creates and connects to a data file much earlier in the profile creation process than in earlier versions. In addition, the Outlook Address Book Service can no longer be reset to use an imported data source in Outlook 2007. I'm sure you can imagine how much of a problem that creates for mail merging. Why would any of that have anything to do with Mail Merge? Outlook creates a data file upon program execution if an existing one can't be found. Now, surely you wouldn't initiate a Mail Merge to your Outlook contacts before you've ever set up your Outlook contacts! As I've stated repeatedly, the problem is has nothing to do with Address Books or how the data file got where it is. The problem was simply a file compatibility issue. Feel free to consider this information here say if you prefer, but its documentation would require that you have an NDA with Microsoft. Hardly. You do not need an NDA with Microsoft to gain access to how their products do what they do. At a low level, you would if you involved with their underlying program code. Based on that statement, everyone who read any documentation at msdn.microsoft.com would need an NDA! On the contrary, we have seen no issues that you suggest might arise because of the change from ANSI to UNICODE. ANSI files remain perfectly compatible with newer versions. There's that *we* again. While this article doesn't specifically cover my situation, it does document what I'm talking about. In a nutshell, you're wrong and if you would just open yourself up to this fact, you might learn something: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ou...190371033.aspx But this article does talk specifically about the issue I encountered and, surprise surprise suggests exactly what my solution was: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ansi-to-unicode.asp The only reason they feel that opening both .pst's is *normally* a better choice is because it gives you easier control over what gets copied to the new .pst, not because there's anything wrong with the import tool. The bottom line is that data migration issues are far worse with newer versions than previous versions. Uh, no. Quite the contrary as I've shown. But, again, if you don't understand what you're talking about (as clearly you've shown you don't by your misstatements) then I can understand why you'd think that as the software gets more sophisticated. While some if these issues weren't relevant to your particular situation with Outlook 2003, they are highly relevant to the user community at large because some of the solutions you propose are no longer considered best practice and may cause problems. Except that Microsoft recommends the solution I've used and you can't provide any evidence that you know what you're talking about. It's fine if you want to chalk this up as undocumented ramblings from an idiot who obviously knows far less than you. But I'll continue to warn people about the potential pitfalls, as we do every day in the Outlook groups. The only reason I continue with this thread is that now you are just posting pure fiction with nothing to back it up. I have provided the technical reasons for the problem and shown you documentation to prove that this is correct. As a NG contributor since the inception of the MS NG's I too feel a responsibility to not let your anecdotally incorrect suppositions and solutions go to someone who really wants to understand what is happening to them and how to fix it properly. Your comments about anecdote are well taken. The procedures you have always used still work well for you (except this last time). Fine. Is that not anecdote? It would be if I simply had said I don't know what happened but here's how I fixed it. But, that's not what I said. I have given you the technical documentation of the issue and that is NOT anecdotal. But they no longer work well for a large number of other users. The experience of many is less anecdotal than the experience of one. Admittedly, newsgroup postings are not a reliable data source because of selection bias. As you aptly pointed out, users do not post what works well, only what doesn't. What's the number? How about a percentage? I would certainly accept that a large number of people posting in the NG's have indicated troubles because that's were people go to report them and get help. You'll most likely find people who are out of gas at a gas station. But clearly there are trends here that indicate a problem with Outlook data migration to which neither you nor I have the final answers. Well, you don't anyway. The technical answers that I've posted do address, definitively, the problem I was ensountering. But *problems* with data migration, doesn't necessarially mean problems with software. It could mean problems with the steps taken to resolve or set up, it could mean anything and to indicate that there is a problem with the software when you have no idea that this is true is irresponsible. Thanks for the spirited debate. It was fun. Sorry you felt the need to include so many ad hominum comments in your replies. I did my best to avoid doing the same, but if I failed, I apologize. Perhaps you'll think twice before initiating your involvement in a thread with rude messages and uninformed information. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... 1. This particular case is not Outlook 2007, as was stated, it's Outlook 2003. But, I'm sorry I believe you are misunderstanding what was explained to you. There are LESS likely to be migration/import problems in newer verstions of Outlook, than with the older versions, meaning Outlook 2003 and 2007 are vastly more compatible than say Outlook 97 or 2000 with Outlook 2003. 2. The main compatibility issues between older version of Outlook (a la 97) and newer versions is that older versions encoded their data using the American National Standards Institue (ANSI) encoding scheme and newer versions encode using Unicode Text Format with 8 bits per character (UTF-8). 3. A secondary reason for incompatibilities is the changes in embedding technology over the years. Back in the days of Outlook 97, Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) was used very often when you wanted to copy data from one source application to another. This was repleaced by Obect Linking & Embedding (OLE), and then ActiveX. 4. The procedure you list at the bottom of your last post is EXACTLY what I've been describing. The only difference in my case(s) is that is is unnecessary to put the file in a different location and set it as the default because I intend for the file being copied in to replace entirely the existing one. If you place an existing .pst file called "outlook.pst" in the exact location of the automatically created one, there's nothing else you need to do. 5. While the MVP community certainly has something to contribute to this or any Microsoft product conversation, they are certainly not the last word on any Microsoft topic and *they* should know and understand that. Microsoft does recommend the usage of the Import option as a reliable way of bringing data from one .pst into another and in my VAST experience using it, I have found no reason whatsoever to dispute that. The *problems* that you've repeatedly warned about are much less likely a problem with the Import feature and much more likely problems relating to what I've mentioned in items 2 and 3 above. Again, you really haven't provided any technical information about what you are talking about, which leads me to belive that you don't have any. All you keep talking about is what you've heard. As someone who has been in IT for nearly 20 years, my experience is that when you don't fully understand something, it becomes easy to base your opinions on the anecdotal evidence of others,. who may know much less than you do. When you do understand how something works, it's much easier to work with it and understand how to get it to do what you want it to do. My problem in this case was that I had never had to have a 2003 product access a '97 file and after some simple research and reasoning discovered the simple answer that the software was not at fault, the file in question was. Simply, creating a new file with the 2003 software (so that the file structure would conform to the native format of the product in question), rather than persisting with the '97 file solves this issue. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... The "we" is the Outlook MVP's after discussions with the Outlook Development Team during the Outlook 2007 beta and after so many end users started reporting difficulties with both migrating and importing PST files. While the procedure you've been using worked fine in earlier Outlook versions, it has become problematic in later versions. The explanation we were given centers around 2 changes that have occurred over the years: 1. What is stored in the PST file and how it is stored (e.g., in hidden messages) has changed over the years, so now the import process may leave information and connections behind that create problems in the receiving PST file. 2. How and when a given profile creates its connection to a PST file has changed and may get disrupted during an import process or during file migration which corrupts the receiving profile. The problem has been acknowledged but we've been told that development resources simply haven't existed to address or fix them. Apparently, PST file connections are not a priority for development since they only affect stand alone end users, not Outlook's core users (Exchange clients). We have long requested that at least the documentation be changed to reflect what procedures are best for current versions, but it hasn't happened so far. So for the time being we recommend that users transfer data by opening the PST file in the receiving profile rather than importing it. If they want to transfer an entire PST file, they should copy it to any location that is not the default location for PST files (to prevent overwriting a PST file), open it in an existing profile, set it as the new default, then restart Outlook and close the PST file created by the profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... No, the problem was not in the tecnique, it was a problem with the file (as stated numerous times). And in over 10 years of doing it like this, to have one circumstance that required a few hours of research is not the catastrophe you keep claiming it is. I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to, but Microsoft does recommend the procedure I used. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do so successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other users. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
|
#29
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
|
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
I'd suggest you post in the groups where these issues are actually
addressed. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Sorry I can't jump through your hoops of providing technical documentation for the problems with Outlook data migration that we have seen, but it doesn't exist. I didn't ask for documentation of the problems, I asked for ANY bit of technical explanation for *problems* other than, "we've seen them". For you to assume that the only problems that are real are those for which Microsoft provides documentation seems a bit naive to me. Me too. Good thing that isn't what I said. Microsoft tends not to document issues they consider minor and that they have no intention of correcting. That's hardly true at all. Many times Microsoft will have a KB article with the sympton, cause, and indicate that there is no resolution at this time. They do not take the "if we can't / won't fix it we won't post information about it. I do know that the experience of the end user community has been remarkably reproducible and consistent with the problems we reported that were never fixed in the last beta. But that doesn't provide any insight as to the root cause, and to give advice on how to solve a problem that you aren't even sure what's causing is reckelss. Outlook 2007 has become extremely intolerant of the PST file migration strategies that used to work well in older versions, including simply placing a file with the right name in the default location. Again, I reject that statement. There is no technical evidence or any reasonable Outlook programming paradigm shift that indicates that statuement to be true. Accordingly, that procedure in particular is no longer recommended. By you. And this is where I think I have one of my biggest beefs (aside from your initial demeanour) with your posts. An MVP should not be making statements that to a newbie could be construed as the word from Microsoft. When you say *we* recommend, you are being very vauge as I'm sure I can find plenty of MVP's who disagree with your suggested plan of action. What's worse is that you, yourself actually suggested the exact same steps that you are now saying you don't recommend. In NG's please post your opinions as such, and not as any officially sanctioned steps. You are not in a position to make those kind of statements. Apparently, most of the data migration problems arose because Outlook 2007 creates and connects to a data file much earlier in the profile creation process than in earlier versions. In addition, the Outlook Address Book Service can no longer be reset to use an imported data source in Outlook 2007. I'm sure you can imagine how much of a problem that creates for mail merging. Why would any of that have anything to do with Mail Merge? Outlook creates a data file upon program execution if an existing one can't be found. Now, surely you wouldn't initiate a Mail Merge to your Outlook contacts before you've ever set up your Outlook contacts! As I've stated repeatedly, the problem is has nothing to do with Address Books or how the data file got where it is. The problem was simply a file compatibility issue. Feel free to consider this information here say if you prefer, but its documentation would require that you have an NDA with Microsoft. Hardly. You do not need an NDA with Microsoft to gain access to how their products do what they do. At a low level, you would if you involved with their underlying program code. Based on that statement, everyone who read any documentation at msdn.microsoft.com would need an NDA! On the contrary, we have seen no issues that you suggest might arise because of the change from ANSI to UNICODE. ANSI files remain perfectly compatible with newer versions. There's that *we* again. While this article doesn't specifically cover my situation, it does document what I'm talking about. In a nutshell, you're wrong and if you would just open yourself up to this fact, you might learn something: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ou...190371033.aspx But this article does talk specifically about the issue I encountered and, surprise surprise suggests exactly what my solution was: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ansi-to-unicode.asp The only reason they feel that opening both .pst's is *normally* a better choice is because it gives you easier control over what gets copied to the new .pst, not because there's anything wrong with the import tool. The bottom line is that data migration issues are far worse with newer versions than previous versions. Uh, no. Quite the contrary as I've shown. But, again, if you don't understand what you're talking about (as clearly you've shown you don't by your misstatements) then I can understand why you'd think that as the software gets more sophisticated. While some if these issues weren't relevant to your particular situation with Outlook 2003, they are highly relevant to the user community at large because some of the solutions you propose are no longer considered best practice and may cause problems. Except that Microsoft recommends the solution I've used and you can't provide any evidence that you know what you're talking about. It's fine if you want to chalk this up as undocumented ramblings from an idiot who obviously knows far less than you. But I'll continue to warn people about the potential pitfalls, as we do every day in the Outlook groups. The only reason I continue with this thread is that now you are just posting pure fiction with nothing to back it up. I have provided the technical reasons for the problem and shown you documentation to prove that this is correct. As a NG contributor since the inception of the MS NG's I too feel a responsibility to not let your anecdotally incorrect suppositions and solutions go to someone who really wants to understand what is happening to them and how to fix it properly. Your comments about anecdote are well taken. The procedures you have always used still work well for you (except this last time). Fine. Is that not anecdote? It would be if I simply had said I don't know what happened but here's how I fixed it. But, that's not what I said. I have given you the technical documentation of the issue and that is NOT anecdotal. But they no longer work well for a large number of other users. The experience of many is less anecdotal than the experience of one. Admittedly, newsgroup postings are not a reliable data source because of selection bias. As you aptly pointed out, users do not post what works well, only what doesn't. What's the number? How about a percentage? I would certainly accept that a large number of people posting in the NG's have indicated troubles because that's were people go to report them and get help. You'll most likely find people who are out of gas at a gas station. But clearly there are trends here that indicate a problem with Outlook data migration to which neither you nor I have the final answers. Well, you don't anyway. The technical answers that I've posted do address, definitively, the problem I was ensountering. But *problems* with data migration, doesn't necessarially mean problems with software. It could mean problems with the steps taken to resolve or set up, it could mean anything and to indicate that there is a problem with the software when you have no idea that this is true is irresponsible. Thanks for the spirited debate. It was fun. Sorry you felt the need to include so many ad hominum comments in your replies. I did my best to avoid doing the same, but if I failed, I apologize. Perhaps you'll think twice before initiating your involvement in a thread with rude messages and uninformed information. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... 1. This particular case is not Outlook 2007, as was stated, it's Outlook 2003. But, I'm sorry I believe you are misunderstanding what was explained to you. There are LESS likely to be migration/import problems in newer verstions of Outlook, than with the older versions, meaning Outlook 2003 and 2007 are vastly more compatible than say Outlook 97 or 2000 with Outlook 2003. 2. The main compatibility issues between older version of Outlook (a la 97) and newer versions is that older versions encoded their data using the American National Standards Institue (ANSI) encoding scheme and newer versions encode using Unicode Text Format with 8 bits per character (UTF-8). 3. A secondary reason for incompatibilities is the changes in embedding technology over the years. Back in the days of Outlook 97, Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) was used very often when you wanted to copy data from one source application to another. This was repleaced by Obect Linking & Embedding (OLE), and then ActiveX. 4. The procedure you list at the bottom of your last post is EXACTLY what I've been describing. The only difference in my case(s) is that is is unnecessary to put the file in a different location and set it as the default because I intend for the file being copied in to replace entirely the existing one. If you place an existing .pst file called "outlook.pst" in the exact location of the automatically created one, there's nothing else you need to do. 5. While the MVP community certainly has something to contribute to this or any Microsoft product conversation, they are certainly not the last word on any Microsoft topic and *they* should know and understand that. Microsoft does recommend the usage of the Import option as a reliable way of bringing data from one .pst into another and in my VAST experience using it, I have found no reason whatsoever to dispute that. The *problems* that you've repeatedly warned about are much less likely a problem with the Import feature and much more likely problems relating to what I've mentioned in items 2 and 3 above. Again, you really haven't provided any technical information about what you are talking about, which leads me to belive that you don't have any. All you keep talking about is what you've heard. As someone who has been in IT for nearly 20 years, my experience is that when you don't fully understand something, it becomes easy to base your opinions on the anecdotal evidence of others,. who may know much less than you do. When you do understand how something works, it's much easier to work with it and understand how to get it to do what you want it to do. My problem in this case was that I had never had to have a 2003 product access a '97 file and after some simple research and reasoning discovered the simple answer that the software was not at fault, the file in question was. Simply, creating a new file with the 2003 software (so that the file structure would conform to the native format of the product in question), rather than persisting with the '97 file solves this issue. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... The "we" is the Outlook MVP's after discussions with the Outlook Development Team during the Outlook 2007 beta and after so many end users started reporting difficulties with both migrating and importing PST files. While the procedure you've been using worked fine in earlier Outlook versions, it has become problematic in later versions. The explanation we were given centers around 2 changes that have occurred over the years: 1. What is stored in the PST file and how it is stored (e.g., in hidden messages) has changed over the years, so now the import process may leave information and connections behind that create problems in the receiving PST file. 2. How and when a given profile creates its connection to a PST file has changed and may get disrupted during an import process or during file migration which corrupts the receiving profile. The problem has been acknowledged but we've been told that development resources simply haven't existed to address or fix them. Apparently, PST file connections are not a priority for development since they only affect stand alone end users, not Outlook's core users (Exchange clients). We have long requested that at least the documentation be changed to reflect what procedures are best for current versions, but it hasn't happened so far. So for the time being we recommend that users transfer data by opening the PST file in the receiving profile rather than importing it. If they want to transfer an entire PST file, they should copy it to any location that is not the default location for PST files (to prevent overwriting a PST file), open it in an existing profile, set it as the new default, then restart Outlook and close the PST file created by the profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... No, the problem was not in the tecnique, it was a problem with the file (as stated numerous times). And in over 10 years of doing it like this, to have one circumstance that required a few hours of research is not the catastrophe you keep claiming it is. I don't know who the "we" is that you refer to, but Microsoft does recommend the procedure I used. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... If it were easy to migrate a PST file, you would have been able to do so successfully, but you didn't. The methods you ended up using are not the ones we recommend and could have untoward consequences for other users. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should be. It's not difficult at all. You are the only one saying that it is. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. Says who? Can you provide some credible technical evidence to back this statement up (besides "look in the NG's for all the posts")? The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Again, says who? Because you are absolutely wrong here. The fact that there is an import feature that is built into Outlook and has been for years and the fact that it works perfectly fine (despite your non-backed up claims to the contrary) indicate that this is a recommended path. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. You're not making any points for anyone to work with. You have posted ZERO technical details. All you've said is "there may be problems" and "it doesn't work" and "read the NG's". The real facts are that migrating a .pst file is NOT a difficult thing to do at all and there isn't really many ways to do it incorrectly. Usually, all you have to do is delete the Outlook.pst file to be replaced and move in the replacement with the same name. The only thing that caused a snag in this case was that either the Outlook 97 file was so old that it was no longer fully compatible with Word 2003 or that there was some corruption in the structure of the .pst file. In either case, creating a fresh .pst file (one created by Outlook 2003) and importing the old content into it would fix the problem and did. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? So, would you characterize "I don't care if you think otherwise" as an attack on the ability and credibility of someone? I would. Would you characterize "Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service." as an attack on the ability of someone when, in fact, there was nothing incorrect posted and no indication that the transfer had been done incorrectly? I would. Russ, stop drinking your Kool-aide and you'll see that you have been extremely arrogant and continue to provide corrections and advice to someone who hasn't asked for any and has posted the problem, cause, and solution. You're wisdom about "always do this" and "never do that" are NOT shared by Microsoft or the technical community, at large and you have not provided any technical or reasonable explanation for your misguided opinions. It turns out that I know just a thing or two about Outlook, myself as I have been teaching custom Outlook form development for many years. I am quite confident in my knowledge and abilities and, oh yes, how to correctly move a .pst and / or import a .pst's contents. Forgive me, but there just isn't anything else to say to you about this. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I want the NG to know (should someone take the time to wade through all your garbage) just how misguided YOUR information (or lack thereof) is in the thread. You've certainly made a mountain out of a molehill. The problem was solved and an explanation was give BEFORE you even chimed in. Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Printing an single envelope in Word 2003, using Outlook Contacts. | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| How can I get Word 2003 to look at my contacts in Outlook | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| word to link to contacts in outlook 2003 | Mailmerge | |||
| Unable to access Outlook contacts from Word 2003 mail merge? | Mailmerge | |||
| Problems merging Word 2003 with Outlook Contacts Folders | Mailmerge | |||
![Scott M.[_2_] is offline](images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
