"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.