A Microsoft Office (Excel, Word) forum. OfficeFrustration

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » OfficeFrustration forum » Microsoft Word » Mailmerge
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 18th, 2009, 03:32 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Scott M.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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.




Ads
  #22  
Old July 18th, 2009, 11:56 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,106
Default 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  
Old July 18th, 2009, 04:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Scott M.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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  
Old July 18th, 2009, 05:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Peter Jamieson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,550
Default 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  
Old July 18th, 2009, 07:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,106
Default 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  
Old July 18th, 2009, 08:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Scott M.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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  
Old July 18th, 2009, 10:44 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,106
Default 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  
Old July 18th, 2009, 11:50 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Scott M.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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  
Old July 19th, 2009, 01:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,106
Default 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.













 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 OfficeFrustration.
The comments are property of their posters.