Word 2003 doesn't see Outlook 2003 Contacts

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

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

Peter Jamieson · External Since: Aug 10, 2004 Posts: 2188

As a workaround you can initiate the merge from Outlook by selecting your
Contacts folder or some contacts, and using the Outlook Tools->Mail Merge...
option. Read the options in dialog box carefully! Also
a. you get to use more of the data in the Contact this way than you do
using the other method
b. the field names you need to use in Word may be different from the ones
that you need when you do it the other way.

I don't know why the other method is not working in this case, but it does
rely on a relatively complicated set of software components to get the data
(it uses the Access/Jet OLE DB provider, and its special Outlook IISAM) and
may fall foul of various Outlook and/or Windows configuration and security
issues. For one thing, Outlook must be set up as the default program for
email (not (just?) for Contacts as you might expect) in Control
Panel->Internet options->Programs or IE->Tools->Internet Options->Programs,
or the Vista equivalent.

Peter Jamieson

"Scott M." <s-mar.TakeThisOut@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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
>

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

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." <s-mar.DeleteThis@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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
>

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlo · External Since: Jan 09, 2004 Posts: 8425

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." <s-mar.TakeThisOut@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:%23JOd2qlBKHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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." <s-mar.TakeThisOut@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>>
>
>

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

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]" <russval RemoveThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23AFsNRmBKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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." <s-mar RemoveThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23JOd2qlBKHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 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." <s-mar RemoveThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

Correction:

>(Word could see the contact folders, but couldn't connect to them).

"Scott M." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uKeF92nBKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23AFsNRmBKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:%23JOd2qlBKHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> 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." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlo · External Since: Jan 09, 2004 Posts: 8425

"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." <s-mar.TakeThisOut@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:uKeF92nBKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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]" <russval.TakeThisOut@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23AFsNRmBKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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." <s-mar.TakeThisOut@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:%23JOd2qlBKHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> 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." <s-mar.TakeThisOut@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Peter Jamieson · External Since: Jan 15, 2009 Posts: 109

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." <s-mar.DeleteThis@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>>
>
>

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

Your welcome.

"Peter Jamieson" <pjj.RemoveThis@KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uGqm8FrBKHA.3368@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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." <s-mar.RemoveThis@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:%23nm5GWa%23JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> 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
>>>
>>

Peter Jamieson · External Since: Jan 15, 2009 Posts: 109

> 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.

Peter Jamieson · External Since: Jan 15, 2009 Posts: 109

> 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/assistance/HA010771141033.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-Outlo · External Since: Jan 09, 2004 Posts: 8425

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" <pjj.DeleteThis@KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> > 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.

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval.TakeThisOut@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:Osk1oS0BKHA.5040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>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" <pjj.TakeThisOut@KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> > 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.
>

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlo · External Since: Jan 09, 2004 Posts: 8425

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." <s-mar.RemoveThis@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:eEETq$0BKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval.RemoveThis@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:Osk1oS0BKHA.5040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>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" <pjj.RemoveThis@KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> > 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.
>>
>
>

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

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]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
news:e0eFvZ5BKHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:eEETq$0BKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:Osk1oS0BKHA.5040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>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" <pjj DeleteThis @KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> > 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>

Peter Jamieson · External Since: Jan 15, 2009 Posts: 109

> 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?

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlo · External Since: Jan 09, 2004 Posts: 8425

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." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:OYaIOi7BKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> 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]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:e0eFvZ5BKHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 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." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:eEETq$0BKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:Osk1oS0BKHA.5040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>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" <pjj DeleteThis @KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

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- Cool

.
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]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
news:O3z$kl9BKHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OYaIOi7BKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> 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]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:e0eFvZ5BKHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> 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." <s-mar DeleteThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:eEETq$0BKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval DeleteThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:Osk1oS0BKHA.5040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>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" <pjj DeleteThis @KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlo · External Since: Jan 09, 2004 Posts: 8425

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." <s-mar.RemoveThis@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:OkRQhC%23BKHA.1488@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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- Cool

.
> 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]" <russval.RemoveThis@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:O3z$kl9BKHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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." <s-mar.RemoveThis@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>> news:OYaIOi7BKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> 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]" <russval.RemoveThis@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>> news:e0eFvZ5BKHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> 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." <s-mar.RemoveThis@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>>> news:eEETq$0BKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval.RemoveThis@mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Osk1oS0BKHA.5040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>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" <pjj.RemoveThis@KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Scott M. · External Since: Jun 30, 2009 Posts: 24

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval RemoveThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uU03xD$BKHA.4608@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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/outlook/HA011190371033.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." <s-mar RemoveThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:OkRQhC%23BKHA.1488@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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- Cool

.
>> 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]" <russval RemoveThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:O3z$kl9BKHA.5068@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> 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." <s-mar RemoveThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:OYaIOi7BKHA.3800@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> 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]" <russval RemoveThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:e0eFvZ5BKHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> 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." <s-mar RemoveThis @nospam.nospam> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eEETq$0BKHA.528@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" <russval RemoveThis @mvps.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Osk1oS0BKHA.5040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>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" <pjj RemoveThis @KillMAPSpjjnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:uYiyTNyBKHA.892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>