Outlook 2007 Contacts Sorting Problem when Company is (none)

  • Thread starter RGVubmlz
  • Start date Views 2,752
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RGVubmlz

In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007, contacts are not

being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards then all

Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set up to sort by

Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company field is

blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST) appear first

while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal contact.

When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company, Outlook shows

two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old contacts while

the second are the newly added contacts.

Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is none? I

have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no avail. Thank you
 
R

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]

Preferences will not be applied to existing Contacts. Only to those you

create. Why would you choose to sort by a field that is null? Makes no

sense.

Russ Valentine

[MVP-Outlook]

"Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message

news:2331FFDF-D2DF-466D-991F-0B6436247235@microsoft.com...
> In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007, contacts are
> not
> being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards then all
> Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set up to sort
> by
> Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company field is
> blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST) appear first
> while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal contact.
> When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company, Outlook
> shows
> two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old contacts
> while
> the second are the newly added contacts.

> Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is none? I
> have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no avail. Thank
> you
 
R

RGVubmlz

Russ,

Thank you for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by

"Preferences will not be applied to existing contacts only to new". Here's

more detail: I have all of my contacts in one folder. I prefer not to have

business contacts and personal contacts in subfolders. Everything works quite

well, my Sort order is Company name and then Last Name, First Name. This way,

all personal contacts are seggregated above the 123 tab, all business

contacts are broken down to each tab letter and are easy to navigate to.

This way personal contacts are not intermixed with business contacts. The

problem I'm experiencing is that the personal contacts are sorted in two

groups. The first is my old contacts and the second are any new contacts

(that is those that I create now).

I would prefer to continue to organize all contacts this way but am open to

suggestions if there is no way to have all contacts where Company is blank

grouped together. I would also appreciate knowing why preferences are not

applied to all contacts not just new. Is there a way to import (or by moving)

to make all old contacts be treated as new contacts?

Thanks for your time.

Dennis

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:


> Preferences will not be applied to existing Contacts. Only to those you
> create. Why would you choose to sort by a field that is null? Makes no
> sense.
> > Russ Valentine
> [MVP-Outlook]
> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> news:2331FFDF-D2DF-466D-991F-0B6436247235@microsoft.com...
> > In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007, contacts are
> > not
> > being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards then all
> > Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set up to sort
> > by
> > Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company field is
> > blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST) appear first
> > while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal contact.
> > When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company, Outlook
> > shows
> > two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old contacts
> > while
> > the second are the newly added contacts.
> > Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is none? I
> > have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no avail. Thank
> > you


>
 
R

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]

I think you need to look for a better way to create the view you want.

Business Cards isn't a very good view to do what you want if it forces you

to sort on a field that is null for many of your Contacts, especially if

those Contacts were created in different versions of Outlook.

Why not use the By Company view to group your contacts, then sort each group

the way you want? That should work.

The preferences I was referring to are the settings you chose for derived

fields like File As... and Full Name... Many people sort on those fields

only to discover that those fields are not consistent because the Contacts

were created under different conditions or in different versions. I was

afraid you might have been trying to sort on views that weren't consistent

and were trying to change them with your settings.

Russ Valentine

[MVP-Outlook]

"Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message

news:DAD2312A-51D7-4CAF-AA13-87361D50E060@microsoft.com...
> Russ,
> Thank you for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> "Preferences will not be applied to existing contacts only to new". Here's
> more detail: I have all of my contacts in one folder. I prefer not to have
> business contacts and personal contacts in subfolders. Everything works
> quite
> well, my Sort order is Company name and then Last Name, First Name. This
> way,
> all personal contacts are seggregated above the 123 tab, all business
> contacts are broken down to each tab letter and are easy to navigate to.

> This way personal contacts are not intermixed with business contacts. The
> problem I'm experiencing is that the personal contacts are sorted in two
> groups. The first is my old contacts and the second are any new contacts
> (that is those that I create now).

> I would prefer to continue to organize all contacts this way but am open
> to
> suggestions if there is no way to have all contacts where Company is blank
> grouped together. I would also appreciate knowing why preferences are not
> applied to all contacts not just new. Is there a way to import (or by
> moving)
> to make all old contacts be treated as new contacts?

> Thanks for your time.
> Dennis
> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
>
> > Preferences will not be applied to existing Contacts. Only to those you
> > create. Why would you choose to sort by a field that is null? Makes no
> > sense.
> > > > Russ Valentine
> > [MVP-Outlook]
> > "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> > news:2331FFDF-D2DF-466D-991F-0B6436247235@microsoft.com...
> > > In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007, contacts are
> > > not
> > > being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards then
> > > all
> > > Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set up to
> > > sort
> > > by
> > > Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company field
> > > is
> > > blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST) appear
> > > first
> > > while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal
> > > contact.
> > > When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company, Outlook
> > > shows
> > > two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old contacts
> > > while
> > > the second are the newly added contacts.
> >> > Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is none?
> > > I
> > > have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no avail.
> > > Thank
> > > you

>

>>
 
R

RGVubmlz

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:


> I think you need to look for a better way to create the view you want.
> Business Cards isn't a very good view to do what you want if it forces you
> to sort on a field that is null for many of your Contacts, especially if
> those Contacts were created in different versions of Outlook.
> Why not use the By Company view to group your contacts, then sort each group
> the way you want? That should work.
> The preferences I was referring to are the settings you chose for derived
> fields like File As... and Full Name... Many people sort on those fields
> only to discover that those fields are not consistent because the Contacts
> were created under different conditions or in different versions. I was
> afraid you might have been trying to sort on views that weren't consistent
> and were trying to change them with your settings.
> > Russ Valentine
> [MVP-Outlook]
> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> news:DAD2312A-51D7-4CAF-AA13-87361D50E060@microsoft.com...
> > Russ,
> > Thank you for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> > "Preferences will not be applied to existing contacts only to new". Here's
> > more detail: I have all of my contacts in one folder. I prefer not to have
> > business contacts and personal contacts in subfolders. Everything works
> > quite
> > well, my Sort order is Company name and then Last Name, First Name. This
> > way,
> > all personal contacts are seggregated above the 123 tab, all business
> > contacts are broken down to each tab letter and are easy to navigate to.
> > This way personal contacts are not intermixed with business contacts. The
> > problem I'm experiencing is that the personal contacts are sorted in two
> > groups. The first is my old contacts and the second are any new contacts
> > (that is those that I create now).
> > I would prefer to continue to organize all contacts this way but am open
> > to
> > suggestions if there is no way to have all contacts where Company is blank
> > grouped together. I would also appreciate knowing why preferences are not
> > applied to all contacts not just new. Is there a way to import (or by
> > moving)
> > to make all old contacts be treated as new contacts?
> > Thanks for your time.
> > Dennis
> > "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
> >
> >> Preferences will not be applied to existing Contacts. Only to those you
> >> create. Why would you choose to sort by a field that is null? Makes no
> >> sense.
> >> > >> Russ Valentine
> >> [MVP-Outlook]
> >> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> >> news:2331FFDF-D2DF-466D-991F-0B6436247235@microsoft.com...
> >> > In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007, contacts are
> >> > not
> >> > being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards then
> >> > all
> >> > Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set up to
> >> > sort
> >> > by
> >> > Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company field
> >> > is
> >> > blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST) appear
> >> > first
> >> > while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal
> >> > contact.
> >> > When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company, Outlook
> >> > shows
> >> > two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old contacts
> >> > while
> >> > the second are the newly added contacts.
> >> >> > Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is none?
> >> > I
> >> > have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no avail.
> >> > Thank
> >> > you
> >
> >>


>


Russ,

Thanks again for your response. The Business Card View is the best one for

the way we use Outlook " more than 95% of the contacts or more are have

company name, there are a small percentage which are personal and do not have

a company. The other reason for using Business Cards is that all business

contacts are sorted nicely and available via tabs on the right hand side and

personal contacts are above the 123 tab. The business contacts are all sorted

properly by business name and sorted by last name. This makes it very easy to

navigate to. The By Company view is only a listing with no tabs so is

unusable (and by the way there are still two groups where company is "none").

The key issue is the one you raised where personal contacts do not have a

company (blank field) and the sort groups those contacts into two "none"

groups (can be seen on By Company view as well).If they were sorted into one,

then all would be fine. The problem you mention is that contacts created with

earlier versions of Outlook must have hidden data that causes 2007 (2003 did

the same) to sort into two different categories, both called none. If there

was way around this, then everything would be perfect. I could enter Company

as "1" but that's a lot of editing and doesn't display well. It appears the

only way is to retype all of the information, and unfortunately there is a

lot of data from over the years. Is there not some program or utility that

can upgrade contacts that were entered using older versions of Outlook to the

current version that would prevent this from happening? I've run the repair

utility but that didn't fix it. In my way of thinking a "blank field" is a

valid sort (and it does work other than old contacts are in a separate

group). Any further suggestions are welcomed. Thanks.

Dennis
 
R

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]

I don't know of any good solution to this, nor any third party software that

can achieve what you want. You're exactly right that Contacts created in

earlier versions may not behave the same way as Contacts created in the

current version. Each version of Outlook handles its PST files and data

somewhat differently, but those differences are not documented. It's also

easy to migrate data from one version to another improperly (like by

exporting and importing) which only compounds the problem.

Because how PST files work is proprietary information, it has been difficult

for third party developers to come up with solutions to these problems. I

don't keep up with third party offerings, but there are some pretty bright

people out there working on these things, so it never hurts to search, or

maybe someone else know of something that might help.

Russ Valentine

[MVP-Outlook]

"Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message

news:47CD044E-C313-4378-81F1-E8549C563A97@microsoft.com...

> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
>
> > I think you need to look for a better way to create the view you want.
> > Business Cards isn't a very good view to do what you want if it forces
> > you
> > to sort on a field that is null for many of your Contacts, especially if
> > those Contacts were created in different versions of Outlook.
> > Why not use the By Company view to group your contacts, then sort each
> > group
> > the way you want? That should work.
> > The preferences I was referring to are the settings you chose for derived
> > fields like File As... and Full Name... Many people sort on those fields
> > only to discover that those fields are not consistent because the
> > Contacts
> > were created under different conditions or in different versions. I was
> > afraid you might have been trying to sort on views that weren't
> > consistent
> > and were trying to change them with your settings.
> > > > Russ Valentine
> > [MVP-Outlook]
> > "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> > news:DAD2312A-51D7-4CAF-AA13-87361D50E060@microsoft.com...
> > > Russ,
> > > Thank you for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> > > "Preferences will not be applied to existing contacts only to new".
> > > Here's
> > > more detail: I have all of my contacts in one folder. I prefer not to
> > > have
> > > business contacts and personal contacts in subfolders. Everything works
> > > quite
> > > well, my Sort order is Company name and then Last Name, First Name.
> > > This
> > > way,
> > > all personal contacts are seggregated above the 123 tab, all business
> > > contacts are broken down to each tab letter and are easy to navigate
> > > to.
> >> > This way personal contacts are not intermixed with business contacts.
> > > The
> > > problem I'm experiencing is that the personal contacts are sorted in
> > > two
> > > groups. The first is my old contacts and the second are any new
> > > contacts
> > > (that is those that I create now).
> >> > I would prefer to continue to organize all contacts this way but am
> > > open
> > > to
> > > suggestions if there is no way to have all contacts where Company is
> > > blank
> > > grouped together. I would also appreciate knowing why preferences are
> > > not
> > > applied to all contacts not just new. Is there a way to import (or by
> > > moving)
> > > to make all old contacts be treated as new contacts?
> >> > Thanks for your time.
> > > Dennis
> > > "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
> >> >> Preferences will not be applied to existing Contacts. Only to those
> > >> you
> > >> create. Why would you choose to sort by a field that is null? Makes no
> > >> sense.
> > >> > > >> Russ Valentine
> > >> [MVP-Outlook]
> > >> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> > >> news:2331FFDF-D2DF-466D-991F-0B6436247235@microsoft.com...
> > >> > In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007, contacts
> > >> > are
> > >> > not
> > >> > being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards then
> > >> > all
> > >> > Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set up
> > >> > to
> > >> > sort
> > >> > by
> > >> > Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company
> > >> > field
> > >> > is
> > >> > blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST) appear
> > >> > first
> > >> > while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal
> > >> > contact.
> > >> > When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company,
> > >> > Outlook
> > >> > shows
> > >> > two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old
> > >> > contacts
> > >> > while
> > >> > the second are the newly added contacts.
> > >>> >> > Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is
> > >> > none?
> > >> > I
> > >> > have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no avail.
> > >> > Thank
> > >> > you
> > >
>> >>

>

>>

> Russ,
> Thanks again for your response. The Business Card View is the best one for
> the way we use Outlook " more than 95% of the contacts or more are have
> company name, there are a small percentage which are personal and do not
> have
> a company. The other reason for using Business Cards is that all business
> contacts are sorted nicely and available via tabs on the right hand side
> and
> personal contacts are above the 123 tab. The business contacts are all
> sorted
> properly by business name and sorted by last name. This makes it very easy
> to
> navigate to. The By Company view is only a listing with no tabs so is
> unusable (and by the way there are still two groups where company is
> "none").
> The key issue is the one you raised where personal contacts do not have a
> company (blank field) and the sort groups those contacts into two "none"
> groups (can be seen on By Company view as well).If they were sorted into
> one,
> then all would be fine. The problem you mention is that contacts created
> with
> earlier versions of Outlook must have hidden data that causes 2007 (2003
> did
> the same) to sort into two different categories, both called none. If
> there
> was way around this, then everything would be perfect. I could enter
> Company
> as "1" but that's a lot of editing and doesn't display well. It appears
> the
> only way is to retype all of the information, and unfortunately there is a
> lot of data from over the years. Is there not some program or utility that
> can upgrade contacts that were entered using older versions of Outlook to
> the
> current version that would prevent this from happening? I've run the
> repair
> utility but that didn't fix it. In my way of thinking a "blank field" is a
> valid sort (and it does work other than old contacts are in a separate
> group). Any further suggestions are welcomed. Thanks.
> Dennis
>
 
R

RGVubmlz

Thanks again for the information Russ. Sorry for all the back and forth. I

have one final question, you mention export/import is not the best way to do

an upgrade. What is? Just open the old pst and drag a copy of Contacts? Same

question moving Calendar data from an old version to a new - I've often lost

the recurrence field (yearly only occurs once).

Dennis

"Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:


> I don't know of any good solution to this, nor any third party software that
> can achieve what you want. You're exactly right that Contacts created in
> earlier versions may not behave the same way as Contacts created in the
> current version. Each version of Outlook handles its PST files and data
> somewhat differently, but those differences are not documented. It's also
> easy to migrate data from one version to another improperly (like by
> exporting and importing) which only compounds the problem.

> Because how PST files work is proprietary information, it has been difficult
> for third party developers to come up with solutions to these problems. I
> don't keep up with third party offerings, but there are some pretty bright
> people out there working on these things, so it never hurts to search, or
> maybe someone else know of something that might help.
> > Russ Valentine
> [MVP-Outlook]
> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> news:47CD044E-C313-4378-81F1-E8549C563A97@microsoft.com...
> > "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
> >
> >> I think you need to look for a better way to create the view you want.
> >> Business Cards isn't a very good view to do what you want if it forces
> >> you
> >> to sort on a field that is null for many of your Contacts, especially if
> >> those Contacts were created in different versions of Outlook.
> >> Why not use the By Company view to group your contacts, then sort each
> >> group
> >> the way you want? That should work.
> >> The preferences I was referring to are the settings you chose for derived
> >> fields like File As... and Full Name... Many people sort on those fields
> >> only to discover that those fields are not consistent because the
> >> Contacts
> >> were created under different conditions or in different versions. I was
> >> afraid you might have been trying to sort on views that weren't
> >> consistent
> >> and were trying to change them with your settings.
> >> > >> Russ Valentine
> >> [MVP-Outlook]
> >> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> >> news:DAD2312A-51D7-4CAF-AA13-87361D50E060@microsoft.com...
> >> > Russ,
> >> > Thank you for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> >> > "Preferences will not be applied to existing contacts only to new".
> >> > Here's
> >> > more detail: I have all of my contacts in one folder. I prefer not to
> >> > have
> >> > business contacts and personal contacts in subfolders. Everything works
> >> > quite
> >> > well, my Sort order is Company name and then Last Name, First Name.
> >> > This
> >> > way,
> >> > all personal contacts are seggregated above the 123 tab, all business
> >> > contacts are broken down to each tab letter and are easy to navigate
> >> > to.
> >> >> > This way personal contacts are not intermixed with business contacts.
> >> > The
> >> > problem I'm experiencing is that the personal contacts are sorted in
> >> > two
> >> > groups. The first is my old contacts and the second are any new
> >> > contacts
> >> > (that is those that I create now).
> >> >> > I would prefer to continue to organize all contacts this way but am
> >> > open
> >> > to
> >> > suggestions if there is no way to have all contacts where Company is
> >> > blank
> >> > grouped together. I would also appreciate knowing why preferences are
> >> > not
> >> > applied to all contacts not just new. Is there a way to import (or by
> >> > moving)
> >> > to make all old contacts be treated as new contacts?
> >> >> > Thanks for your time.
> >> > Dennis
> >> > "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
> >> >> >> Preferences will not be applied to existing Contacts. Only to those
> >> >> you
> >> >> create. Why would you choose to sort by a field that is null? Makes no
> >> >> sense.
> >> >> > >> >> Russ Valentine
> >> >> [MVP-Outlook]
> >> >> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> >> >> news:2331FFDF-D2DF-466D-991F-0B6436247235@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007, contacts
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards then
> >> >> > all
> >> >> > Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set up
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > sort
> >> >> > by
> >> >> > Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company
> >> >> > field
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST) appear
> >> >> > first
> >> >> > while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal
> >> >> > contact.
> >> >> > When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company,
> >> >> > Outlook
> >> >> > shows
> >> >> > two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old
> >> >> > contacts
> >> >> > while
> >> >> > the second are the newly added contacts.
> >> >> >> >> > Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is
> >> >> > none?
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no avail.
> >> >> > Thank
> >> >> > you
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >>

> > Russ,
> > Thanks again for your response. The Business Card View is the best one for
> > the way we use Outlook " more than 95% of the contacts or more are have
> > company name, there are a small percentage which are personal and do not
> > have
> > a company. The other reason for using Business Cards is that all business
> > contacts are sorted nicely and available via tabs on the right hand side
> > and
> > personal contacts are above the 123 tab. The business contacts are all
> > sorted
> > properly by business name and sorted by last name. This makes it very easy
> > to
> > navigate to. The By Company view is only a listing with no tabs so is
> > unusable (and by the way there are still two groups where company is
> > "none").
> > The key issue is the one you raised where personal contacts do not have a
> > company (blank field) and the sort groups those contacts into two "none"
> > groups (can be seen on By Company view as well).If they were sorted into
> > one,
> > then all would be fine. The problem you mention is that contacts created
> > with
> > earlier versions of Outlook must have hidden data that causes 2007 (2003
> > did
> > the same) to sort into two different categories, both called none. If
> > there
> > was way around this, then everything would be perfect. I could enter
> > Company
> > as "1" but that's a lot of editing and doesn't display well. It appears
> > the
> > only way is to retype all of the information, and unfortunately there is a
> > lot of data from over the years. Is there not some program or utility that
> > can upgrade contacts that were entered using older versions of Outlook to
> > the
> > current version that would prevent this from happening? I've run the
> > repair
> > utility but that didn't fix it. In my way of thinking a "blank field" is a
> > valid sort (and it does work other than old contacts are in a separate
> > group). Any further suggestions are welcomed. Thanks.
> > Dennis
> >


>
 
R

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]

You never use export and import to transfer Outlook data. You simply copy

the data file and open it in the other installation. Correct methods for

data transfer are posted here frequently. Take a look at these pages for

info on Outlook data backup or transfer:

http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm

http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA010771141033.aspx

Russ Valentine

[MVP-Outlook]

"Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message

news:B9B68AD8-BC23-4B11-A10F-E5065399326E@microsoft.com...
> Thanks again for the information Russ. Sorry for all the back and forth. I
> have one final question, you mention export/import is not the best way to
> do
> an upgrade. What is? Just open the old pst and drag a copy of Contacts?
> Same
> question moving Calendar data from an old version to a new - I've often
> lost
> the recurrence field (yearly only occurs once).

> Dennis

> "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
>
> > I don't know of any good solution to this, nor any third party software
> > that
> > can achieve what you want. You're exactly right that Contacts created in
> > earlier versions may not behave the same way as Contacts created in the
> > current version. Each version of Outlook handles its PST files and data
> > somewhat differently, but those differences are not documented. It's also
> > easy to migrate data from one version to another improperly (like by
> > exporting and importing) which only compounds the problem.
>

>> Because how PST files work is proprietary information, it has been
> > difficult
> > for third party developers to come up with solutions to these problems. I
> > don't keep up with third party offerings, but there are some pretty
> > bright
> > people out there working on these things, so it never hurts to search, or
> > maybe someone else know of something that might help.
> > > > Russ Valentine
> > [MVP-Outlook]
> > "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> > news:47CD044E-C313-4378-81F1-E8549C563A97@microsoft.com...
> >>> > "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
> >> >> I think you need to look for a better way to create the view you want.
> > >> Business Cards isn't a very good view to do what you want if it forces
> > >> you
> > >> to sort on a field that is null for many of your Contacts, especially
> > >> if
> > >> those Contacts were created in different versions of Outlook.
> > >> Why not use the By Company view to group your contacts, then sort each
> > >> group
> > >> the way you want? That should work.
> > >> The preferences I was referring to are the settings you chose for
> > >> derived
> > >> fields like File As... and Full Name... Many people sort on those
> > >> fields
> > >> only to discover that those fields are not consistent because the
> > >> Contacts
> > >> were created under different conditions or in different versions. I
> > >> was
> > >> afraid you might have been trying to sort on views that weren't
> > >> consistent
> > >> and were trying to change them with your settings.
> > >> > > >> Russ Valentine
> > >> [MVP-Outlook]
> > >> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> > >> news:DAD2312A-51D7-4CAF-AA13-87361D50E060@microsoft.com...
> > >> > Russ,
> > >> > Thank you for your quick response. I'm not sure what you mean by
> > >> > "Preferences will not be applied to existing contacts only to new".
> > >> > Here's
> > >> > more detail: I have all of my contacts in one folder. I prefer not
> > >> > to
> > >> > have
> > >> > business contacts and personal contacts in subfolders. Everything
> > >> > works
> > >> > quite
> > >> > well, my Sort order is Company name and then Last Name, First Name.
> > >> > This
> > >> > way,
> > >> > all personal contacts are seggregated above the 123 tab, all
> > >> > business
> > >> > contacts are broken down to each tab letter and are easy to navigate
> > >> > to.
> > >>> >> > This way personal contacts are not intermixed with business
> > >> > contacts.
> > >> > The
> > >> > problem I'm experiencing is that the personal contacts are sorted in
> > >> > two
> > >> > groups. The first is my old contacts and the second are any new
> > >> > contacts
> > >> > (that is those that I create now).
> > >>> >> > I would prefer to continue to organize all contacts this way but am
> > >> > open
> > >> > to
> > >> > suggestions if there is no way to have all contacts where Company is
> > >> > blank
> > >> > grouped together. I would also appreciate knowing why preferences
> > >> > are
> > >> > not
> > >> > applied to all contacts not just new. Is there a way to import (or
> > >> > by
> > >> > moving)
> > >> > to make all old contacts be treated as new contacts?
> > >>> >> > Thanks for your time.
> > >> > Dennis
> > >> > "Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
> > >>> >> >> Preferences will not be applied to existing Contacts. Only to those
> > >> >> you
> > >> >> create. Why would you choose to sort by a field that is null? Makes
> > >> >> no
> > >> >> sense.
> > >> >> > > >> >> Russ Valentine
> > >> >> [MVP-Outlook]
> > >> >> "Dennis" <Dennis> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:2331FFDF-D2DF-466D-991F-0B6436247235@microsoft.com...
> > >> >> > In upgrading to a new machine and installing Outlook 2007,
> > >> >> > contacts
> > >> >> > are
> > >> >> > not
> > >> >> > being sorted correctly. When View=>Current View=>Business Cards
> > >> >> > then
> > >> >> > all
> > >> >> > Company (field is filled in) contacts are sorted correctly (Set
> > >> >> > up
> > >> >> > to
> > >> >> > sort
> > >> >> > by
> > >> >> > Company then by Last Name). BUT personal contacts (where Company
> > >> >> > field
> > >> >> > is
> > >> >> > blank), old contacts (brought in by a COPY from previous PST)
> > >> >> > appear
> > >> >> > first
> > >> >> > while New contacts (added now) appear below the last old personal
> > >> >> > contact.
> > >> >> > When looking at contacts in the View=>Current View=>by Company,
> > >> >> > Outlook
> > >> >> > shows
> > >> >> > two groups of Company:(none) (xxx items), the first is the old
> > >> >> > contacts
> > >> >> > while
> > >> >> > the second are the newly added contacts.
> > >> >>> >> >> > Does anyone know of a way to group the contacts where Company is
> > >> >> > none?
> > >> >> > I
> > >> >> > have tried export/import, deleting and moving back all to no
> > >> >> > avail.
> > >> >> > Thank
> > >> >> > you
> > >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Russ,
> > > Thanks again for your response. The Business Card View is the best one
> > > for
> > > the way we use Outlook " more than 95% of the contacts or more are have
> > > company name, there are a small percentage which are personal and do
> > > not
> > > have
> > > a company. The other reason for using Business Cards is that all
> > > business
> > > contacts are sorted nicely and available via tabs on the right hand
> > > side
> > > and
> > > personal contacts are above the 123 tab. The business contacts are all
> > > sorted
> > > properly by business name and sorted by last name. This makes it very
> > > easy
> > > to
> > > navigate to. The By Company view is only a listing with no tabs so is
> > > unusable (and by the way there are still two groups where company is
> > > "none").
> > > The key issue is the one you raised where personal contacts do not have
> > > a
> > > company (blank field) and the sort groups those contacts into two
> > > "none"
> > > groups (can be seen on By Company view as well).If they were sorted
> > > into
> > > one,
> > > then all would be fine. The problem you mention is that contacts
> > > created
> > > with
> > > earlier versions of Outlook must have hidden data that causes 2007
> > > (2003
> > > did
> > > the same) to sort into two different categories, both called none. If
> > > there
> > > was way around this, then everything would be perfect. I could enter
> > > Company
> > > as "1" but that's a lot of editing and doesn't display well. It appears
> > > the
> > > only way is to retype all of the information, and unfortunately there
> > > is a
> > > lot of data from over the years. Is there not some program or utility
> > > that
> > > can upgrade contacts that were entered using older versions of Outlook
> > > to
> > > the
> > > current version that would prevent this from happening? I've run the
> > > repair
> > > utility but that didn't fix it. In my way of thinking a "blank field"
> > > is a
> > > valid sort (and it does work other than old contacts are in a separate
> > > group). Any further suggestions are welcomed. Thanks.
> > > Dennis
> > >

>

>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top