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.