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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Your welcome.
"Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Thanks for posting back with your solution. Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Scott M. wrote: The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise,
comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Yours qualifies however.
An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other
users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx What part of my saying that the above procedures were tried and failed didn't you get? 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. I do not accept that statement at all. You've provided no technical information to back that up and only provide as evidence, messages in a place that people who have problems post. What else do you expect? Message after message of people talking about their succes with Importing? As I stated in my last message, you have not provided any meaningful insight to anything relating to this issue other than, you're right, I'm wrong and because you said so. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. Hmmm. I don't care what you think. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
There is no reason to think that numbers 1, 2, 3, and 6 would be imported,
since they are items stored with Outlook, not your personal folders. By the way birthdays and anniversarries are imported when calendar items are included in the import. Perhaps you aren't doing it right. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
I certainly
see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. What is this? Experienced users know better. What is this? To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
You never clarified what procedures you tried to migrate your PST file that
failed.When done correctly, PST files can readily be migrated from one installation to another. I'm sorry you failed to do so. If you need help, post in an Outlook group where you can get more opinions than mine. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx What part of my saying that the above procedures were tried and failed didn't you get? 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. I do not accept that statement at all. You've provided no technical information to back that up and only provide as evidence, messages in a place that people who have problems post. What else do you expect? Message after message of people talking about their succes with Importing? As I stated in my last message, you have not provided any meaningful insight to anything relating to this issue other than, you're right, I'm wrong and because you said so. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. Hmmm. I don't care what you think. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
I quite agree that migrating PST files is far more difficult than it should
be. To suggest that this is a new or unidentified problem that has never been addressed is incorrect, however. The problem is very well known and the solutions to it are well documented. Those solutions do not require creating a new PST file from scratch nor do they include importing from an older PST file. Both of those remedies may create more problems than they solve. Since these are not issues normally dealt with in this newsgroup, I did not want them to stand without counterpoint because they could cause problems for users who might assume they were correct. In my world, flames are personal attacks on the ability, credibility, or character of the poster that have no bearing on the content of the thread. In whose posts do those occur? Comments about "unsolicited advice" mystify me. How could there be "unsolicited advice" in a public newsgroup? -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Peter Jamieson" wrote in message ... Yours qualifies however. An overreaction? I don't see any flame from "the other side". His case is well-argued and indicates a problem with .pst upgrade that may well not have been identified before, nor is likely to be given much attention, given that he's starting from such an old .pst file and that it's an interop problem (not Microsoft's forte IME). Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] wrote: My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts
I did clarify what procedures I used and I did so several times, you just
keep ignoring it. It doesn't matter though because, at no point was I asking about how to do that. I know how to do it and despite your repeated warnings of "if not done right" or "when done correctly", it's not a complicated thing to do and that is not where the problem was at any rate (which I've stated several times). It's interesting that you continuously are bringing this up and that (below) you seem to have come to the conclusion that I did something wrong, when I've given you no indications of that. In fact, it's interesting that you are still offering advice, when I've not asked for any. By the time you joined the thread, I had already worked the the problem, cause, and solution. I'm all set. You can dispense your valuable advice to someone who needs it. "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... You never clarified what procedures you tried to migrate your PST file that failed.When done correctly, PST files can readily be migrated from one installation to another. I'm sorry you failed to do so. If you need help, post in an Outlook group where you can get more opinions than mine. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Hardly. I saw two things in your post that could cause problems for other users, so I corrected them. 1. Migrating the PST file correctly would have prevented this problem and PST files from previous Outlook versions can readily be used in a mail merge when migrated correctly. It is easy to make a mistake when migrating PST files because the process is very unforgiving, but the proper procedures are well documented: http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx What part of my saying that the above procedures were tried and failed didn't you get? 2. Importing PST files has become too unreliable to be recommended. Even a cursory search of the Outlook groups will confirm that. I do not accept that statement at all. You've provided no technical information to back that up and only provide as evidence, messages in a place that people who have problems post. What else do you expect? Message after message of people talking about their succes with Importing? As I stated in my last message, you have not provided any meaningful insight to anything relating to this issue other than, you're right, I'm wrong and because you said so. Didn't mean to set you off so severely. Sorry about that. I certainly see some rude comments in this thread, but they aren't in my posts. Hmmm. I don't care what you think. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... If you have some technical information to share, please do so. Otherwise, comments like "it will often fail", etc. are of no use to anyone. Also, since you are oblivious to why your message was considered a flame, let me share some *advice* for you when you post in a NG (us experienced folks are happy to do that). Upon entering a thread, it is considered rude to provide unsolicited advice to someone who has solved their problem using the recommended software approach with "I don't care what you think." Inclduing in your post a reference to how you are experienced and the OP must not be without knowing anything about the OP doesn't make you look like an ally. It makes you look like an idiot. You have provided no useful information Russ. I have. I have posted a problem, the symptoms, and the cure. You have posted egotistical nonsense. PLONK "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... My goodness. To consider my post a flame is a ridiculous. Yours qualifies however. As you teach Outlook, please be sure to tell others to avoid using the import feature if their data is already in Outlook format. Importing PST's will lose: 1. Custom Forms 2. Custom Views 3. Connections between contacts and activities 4. Received dates on mail 5. Birthdays and anniversaries in calendar 6. Journal connections 7. Distribution Lists It will also often corrupt the profile if done incorrectly (which many manage to do). Opening a PST file will preserve all of these. That is why we do not advise people to import a native file into Outlook. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Wow. How about you check your ego at the door?! As if you are the only *experienced user* out there. Apparently, you rushed to flame me before even reading my post. Did I say that copying the .pst and importing a .pst were the same thing? No. I said that I have done them both over a decade of using (and teaching) Outlook. I think that this experience and countless manipulations to and with the .pst file qualify me to post my experience as legitimate. To say "I don't care if you think otherwise" just translates to you are ignorant and I'm not saying that to be insulting, I'm saying that your comments are the dictionary definition of ignorant. How about reading the part where I told you that I did, in fact try doing the transfer as you suggested and connecting it to the Outlook Address Book? Then, to start your most recent message off questioning what transfer means? What drugs are you on?! What in the world do you mean when you suggest the I should post *accurately*. There's nothing that I've posted that is incorrect. I suggest that you be more careful before posting your advice, as clearly you have trouble when people don't take it. The bottom line is that my simple technique that I've done hundreds of times (oh, and that Microsoft provides in the software) worked just as it should have without having to hack my way through it as you suggest. To suggest as proof that the fact that the numerous posts in the Outlook groups are somehow *proof* that the import feature is flawed and not documented as such by Microsoft is akin to me telling you to scan the .NET newsgroups for people having trouble mananging memory in the appps and then suggesting that the reason is that the GC mechanism in the framework is flawed, rather than the slightly more resaonable answer is that people who understand it and use it successfully genenerally don't post messages about how they can't get it to work! Geeze! Did it ever occur to you that just because someone doesn't have MVP in thier email signature, that they still might know a thing or two (perhaps even more than you do) about the topic? Try standing in a proof of concept meeting and use an argument like "Your technique is flawed. I have no technical information as to why and I don't care if you disagree! Even though you are using the recommended proceedure and it works reliably for you, you're wrong!". Please! "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... "The procedure for transferring?" What procedure was that? Using the correct procedure would have worked. You mention copying and importing in the same sentence as if they were the same thing. Hardly. Outlook's import procedure has become so deeply flawed that should not be used. I don't care if you think otherwise. Read the Outlook groups and let others provide the testimony to that fact. Please be careful that you post accurately when you post information for others to use. Microsoft has never acknowledged the problems with its import function. Experienced users know better. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... Russ, In my attempts to get this working, the procedure for transferring was tried to no avail. The .pst file was working within the context of Outlook just fine, so initially, there was no reason to believe that any "transfer" was necessary. It was only when a mail merge was initiated from Word that any hint of a problem came up (Outlook could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them). If no mail merge was needed, the Outlook file was functioning flawlessly. I have no idea why you say that you should "never" populate a new .pst with data from another one via the Import feature since I have been doing this for over a decade with zero issues...ever. Also, Microsoft provides this functionaly as a feature within the product. Opening the two .pst's simultaneously and copying between them works, but it's completely uneccesaary and time consuming if you want to make sure you get all the information from all the categories without duplication (especially calendar holidays). FYI - In over a decade of my experiences with working with .pst's, I've would up with .pst's that are VERY large and have all of the various types of Outlook items within them. I've never had any issues with copying .pst's and/or importing from them. This particular situation was for a client of mine who had a .pst that, I'm beginning to believe had some corruption in it to begin with. -Scott "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote in message ... Some corrections are necessary to your post. A PST file from Outlook 97 would have worked perfectly well had it been transferred correctly and then connected correctly to the Outlook Address Book Service. Instructions for doing so abound in the KB and in the Outlook groups. Creating a new PST file is fine, but you would never populate it by importing data from another PST file. You should copy data from one file to the other while both are open in the Outlook profile. -- Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] "Scott M." wrote in message ... The problem was that an older .pst file (from Outlook 97) was copied over for use in Outlook 2003 and Outlook 2003 could not properly make the contacts available to Word 200 for the purposes of Mail Merge. The soluion was to remove the old .pst and create a new .pst and then import the old data into the new .pst. -Scott "Scott M." wrote in message ... In Word 2003, during the Mail Merge wizard, my Outlook contacts are not showing up, when Outlook is selected as the data source (BTW Outlook 2003 as well). The contact folder in Outlook does have its property set to act as an address book. Thanks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|