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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|