I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the old one in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of the journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in 2000 Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to have gone
away in 2003. Thanks.

That would be expected. Not sure what suggestions you were following, but
they were not the right ones. If you need to preserve links, you use the
same PST, not a new one.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
news
I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the old one in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of the
journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in 2000
Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to have
gone
away in 2003. Thanks.

I'll dig up the link. In the meantime, how do I find the unlinked journal
entries. Are they deleted?

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

That would be expected. Not sure what suggestions you were following, but
they were not the right ones. If you need to preserve links, you use the
same PST, not a new one.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
news
I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the old one in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of the
journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in 2000
Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to have
gone
away in 2003. Thanks.

Only if you do not still have the original PST file.
If you have some pressing need to convert to the new PST file format in
Outlook 2003, then count on losing your links.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
I'll dig up the link. In the meantime, how do I find the unlinked journal
entries. Are they deleted?

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

That would be expected. Not sure what suggestions you were following, but
they were not the right ones. If you need to preserve links, you use the
same PST, not a new one.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
news
I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the old one
in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of the
journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in 2000
Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to have
gone
away in 2003. Thanks.

Well, I wouldn't call it a pressing need, just SOP. In the rest of the of the
software world, when a vendor changes the format of their product, the normal
procedure is to provide a way users to convert existing data. That's usually
pretty critical to retaining any customers. Not so on Planet Microsoft? ;-)
That seems pretty lame. Seriously, I must be missing something here.




"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

Only if you do not still have the original PST file.
If you have some pressing need to convert to the new PST file format in
Outlook 2003, then count on losing your links.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
I'll dig up the link. In the meantime, how do I find the unlinked journal
entries. Are they deleted?

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

That would be expected. Not sure what suggestions you were following, but
they were not the right ones. If you need to preserve links, you use the
same PST, not a new one.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
news I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the old one
in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of the
journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in 2000
Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to have
gone
away in 2003. Thanks.

There is no way to convert a PST file. If you need to convert to the new
format, you create a new PST file in the new format. You copy the data you
want from your old to the new. You 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
Continuing to use your old PST file preserves these.
Don't blame me. This wasn't my idea. Microsoft makes you choose between the
new format or the above information.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
Well, I wouldn't call it a pressing need, just SOP. In the rest of the of
the
software world, when a vendor changes the format of their product, the
normal
procedure is to provide a way users to convert existing data. That's
usually
pretty critical to retaining any customers. Not so on Planet Microsoft?
;-)
That seems pretty lame. Seriously, I must be missing something here.




"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

Only if you do not still have the original PST file.
If you have some pressing need to convert to the new PST file format in
Outlook 2003, then count on losing your links.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
I'll dig up the link. In the meantime, how do I find the unlinked
journal
entries. Are they deleted?

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

That would be expected. Not sure what suggestions you were following,
but
they were not the right ones. If you need to preserve links, you use
the
same PST, not a new one.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
news I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the old
one
in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of the
journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in 2000
Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to
have
gone
away in 2003. Thanks.

Not blaming you, Russ. Sorry if it came across that way. I appreciate the
time you took to let me know how it works. I'm blaming Microsoft. The forum
is one way of providing feedback to Microsoft and warning other users about
gotchas like this. I think the list below speaks for itself. You can stick
with the old format and eventually be unsupported. (Eventually the old format
will not be readable by future versions of Outlook). Or you can use the new
format and lose a bunch of critical information. Here are two links which
describe two ways of upgrading to the new format. Notice that neither make
any mention the rather critical fact that you will lose data in process.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...823561033.aspx
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...spx?mode=print



"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

There is no way to convert a PST file. If you need to convert to the new
format, you create a new PST file in the new format. You copy the data you
want from your old to the new. You 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
Continuing to use your old PST file preserves these.
Don't blame me. This wasn't my idea. Microsoft makes you choose between the
new format or the above information.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
Well, I wouldn't call it a pressing need, just SOP. In the rest of the of
the
software world, when a vendor changes the format of their product, the
normal
procedure is to provide a way users to convert existing data. That's
usually
pretty critical to retaining any customers. Not so on Planet Microsoft?
;-)
That seems pretty lame. Seriously, I must be missing something here.




"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

Only if you do not still have the original PST file.
If you have some pressing need to convert to the new PST file format in
Outlook 2003, then count on losing your links.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
I'll dig up the link. In the meantime, how do I find the unlinked
journal
entries. Are they deleted?

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

That would be expected. Not sure what suggestions you were following,
but
they were not the right ones. If you need to preserve links, you use
the
same PST, not a new one.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
news I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the old
one
in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of the
journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in 2000
Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to
have
gone
away in 2003. Thanks.

While I agree that Microsoft should have done a better job of this, you may
be overstating things a bit.
1. It is highly unlikely that ANSI format will ever be unsupported.
2. Most users have no need to migrate from ANSI to UNICODE
3. The information lost in migrating affects very few users.

You want to know where I think they really blew it? When people export from
a PST file in Outlook 2003, they are given no warning that the PST file they
are about to create is incompatible with all other versions of Outlook.
Nice.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
Not blaming you, Russ. Sorry if it came across that way. I appreciate the
time you took to let me know how it works. I'm blaming Microsoft. The
forum
is one way of providing feedback to Microsoft and warning other users
about
gotchas like this. I think the list below speaks for itself. You can
stick
with the old format and eventually be unsupported. (Eventually the old
format
will not be readable by future versions of Outlook). Or you can use the
new
format and lose a bunch of critical information. Here are two links which
describe two ways of upgrading to the new format. Notice that neither make
any mention the rather critical fact that you will lose data in process.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...823561033.aspx
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...spx?mode=print



"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

There is no way to convert a PST file. If you need to convert to the new
format, you create a new PST file in the new format. You copy the data
you
want from your old to the new. You 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
Continuing to use your old PST file preserves these.
Don't blame me. This wasn't my idea. Microsoft makes you choose between
the
new format or the above information.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
Well, I wouldn't call it a pressing need, just SOP. In the rest of the
of
the
software world, when a vendor changes the format of their product, the
normal
procedure is to provide a way users to convert existing data. That's
usually
pretty critical to retaining any customers. Not so on Planet Microsoft?
;-)
That seems pretty lame. Seriously, I must be missing something here.




"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

Only if you do not still have the original PST file.
If you have some pressing need to convert to the new PST file format
in
Outlook 2003, then count on losing your links.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in message
...
I'll dig up the link. In the meantime, how do I find the unlinked
journal
entries. Are they deleted?

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

That would be expected. Not sure what suggestions you were
following,
but
they were not the right ones. If you need to preserve links, you
use
the
same PST, not a new one.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"pearsons_11114" wrote in
message
news I followed the suggested route and created a new PST, opened the
old
one
in
Outlook and copied from the old PST to the new. However, all of
the
journal
entries associated with each contact are missing. I believe in
2000
Journal
entries had there own entry in the folder tree, but that seems to
have
gone
away in 2003. Thanks.