Moreover, if it makes you feel better to post that Outlook's developers
removed a popular, useful feature from Outlook and should be taken to task
for it then be my guest.
You would be wrong, of course, and the distinction is not, to use your term,
"supercilious." Outlook's developers never put this feature in Outlook. This
was and is a feature exclusive to Outlook Express. Simply "adding it back"
to Outlook is not possible--it never existed. These two programs are in no
way related and use different transports. The code required to add this
feature anew to Outlook's transports could not be justified.
In my opinion, it is very worthwhile for users who long for the features of
Outlook 2000 IMO to know that they were actually using Outlook Express'
transports, not Outlook's. Indeed, those people may actually prefer Outlook
Express and should know they can return to it at any time.
If conveying that information is "rude" then I stand justly accused.
Otherwise, holster your weapon and be more circumspect when you take aim at
others.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"David" wrote in message
...
Hello Russ,

I have just spent almost an hour reading people's queries and problems
with
Outlook and must say that your posts are often rude and supercilious.
Take this problem with the loss of the, obviously, very useful nickname
functionality in previous versions. What does it matter that it was only
available in IMO mode (whatever that means)? The fact is that it WAS
available and a lot of people found it useful and now it is no more. Why
can't you just acknowledge this? It is exasperating when an updated
version
offers a reduction in service, and this exasperation is compounded when
people like you do not recognise this, or worse still, tell us that we are
mistaken and that what we are missing was never actually available to us
in
the first place!
A little more understanding and appreciation of the human condition
wouldn't
go amiss.

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

I already explained all that in my previous post. You weren't using the
Outlook Address Book in IMO mode. You were using Outlook Express'. No
full
version of Outlook ever had this feature nor can it be configured to do
so.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Vicki" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure why you keep telling me "my memory is failing me" and I
must
have been using "Outlook Express" when clearly I was using Outlook 2000
AND
when I have read other posts about this capability working in the
"defunct
IMO mode". When a previous "feature" (that users grow to depend on)
gets
removed from a "defunct" version of Outlook (NOT Outlook Express), it's
frustrating being told you are incorrect in your memory and use of that
said
feature. If it doesn't work anymore, it doesn't work, but please don't
insult my intelligence by telling me I am wrong about the use of the
feature.

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

No. Outlook never had this ability. You were using Outlook Express
when
you
did this.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"Vicki" wrote in message
...
I, too, am trying to figure out how to turn back on this apparantly
defunct
"feature" as I loved it and depended on it heavily in my 2000
version
of
Outlook. Is there a way to reinstate the ability to have Outlook
both
"Find"
a contact and "Resolve a name" by using the Nickname Field in the
Contact
record? I am willing to hack the registry.

Thanks,
Vicki

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

To add even further to the confusion is the fact that there are two
types
of
"nicknames" in Outlook and you have them confused. When you
manually
resolve
a name in Outlook, that name is stored in the autoresolution cache
and
is
referred to as a "nickname." The next time you resolve that name,
it
will
use the address you previously stored for that name. That has
nothing
to
do
with the Nickname field, which as Sue points out is simply a data
field
in
the Contact record. That field has never been used for
autoresolution
in
the
Outlook Address Book Service.
The reason you may have thought it was is that you weren't using
the
Outlook
Address Book Service in Outlook 98 and 2000 when you were using IMO
mode.
You were using the Windows Address Book Service.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"FranksBank" wrote in
message
...
There seems to be a continual denial that Nickname usage has
existed
in
anything other than peculiar versions of Outlook. I have used
Outlook
'98,
2000 and now 2003 in various offices and at home; all aparently
standard
versions. Only now in the 2003 version can I not use Nicknames in
the
way
that I have used them before. As follows:

Having set a nickname, I could hit Ctrl-K and have the relevant
detail
appear in the To field. The fact that this does not work in
Outlook
2003
is,
to say the least, extremely frustrating. It never ceases to amaze
me
how
application advances often translate into functional
deterioration.

Having been unable to find a satisfactory answer to the question
'how
do I
use my nicknames?' I would like to re-phrase this question and
put
it
to
to
the forum:

What is the Nickname field for in 2003? What purpose does it
serve,
and
how
so?
Rather than a repeated 'that won't work and never did' answer, it
would
be
very useful and customer friendly to explain exactly what the
field
is
about
and how it may be used.

Many thanks for any further constructive assistance with this
issue.
Kind regards
FB



"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:

Not in any standard version of Outlook. Only the long abandoned
IMO
mode
of
Outlook made use of that field.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
wrote in message
ups.com...
There is a nickname field in the Contats setup page. This is
the
name
you could (previous to Outlook 2003) use in place of an actual
e-mail
address in the "To" field, or the other fileds in a newlwy
composed
message.