OL 2003 contact category view subsort

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ixthnar - 03 Dec 2005 23:33 GMT

In the Outlook 2002 contact category view I could sub-sort by clicking the
column heading. In Outlook 2003 the same action takes me out of the category
view. Is there an alternative way to, for example, sub-sort by company while
in the contact category view? (I swear that the only way the products are
different is that OL 2002 was more usable and robust.)

Reply to this Message

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] - 04 Dec 2005 05:23 GMT

Judy Gleeson has provided the following workaround to overcome the new way
Outlook 2003 sorts the "By Category" view:
Use the Detailed or Simple List view, show the columns you want to see
(field chooser), click the column (eg Last Name) you want to sort by, THEN
use the group by box to group by Category. That should have alphabetical as
well as the grouping.

Signature

Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

> In the Outlook 2002 contact category view I could sub-sort by clicking the
> column heading. In Outlook 2003 the same action takes me out of the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> in the contact category view? (I swear that the only way the products are
> different is that OL 2002 was more usable and robust.)

Reply to this Message

Ixthnar - 04 Dec 2005 13:06 GMT

Thank you. This work around works. Why all of the looses of functionality
in Office 2003? It is moving from disappointing to alarming. I would
conclude that one could offer Office 2002 as an an UPGRADE to Office 2003.

> Judy Gleeson has provided the following workaround to overcome the new way
> Outlook 2003 sorts the "By Category" view:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> > in the contact category view? (I swear that the only way the products are
> > different is that OL 2002 was more usable and robust.)

Reply to this Message

Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] - 04 Dec 2005 13:47 GMT

Interesting you should say that. With a few notable exceptions like this
one, most of us found Outlook 2003 the most improved version ever.
What other features are missing?

Signature

Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

> Thank you. This work around works. Why all of the looses of
> functionality
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> > are
>> > different is that OL 2002 was more usable and robust.)

Reply to this Message

Ixthnar - 04 Dec 2005 14:23 GMT

The default for "Show in Groups" is rather annoying. The Business Contact
Manager installed poorly (i.e. crashed OL) and is was that kind of sloppy
behavor that I associated with one-off VB applications. The "improved"
linking in contacts offers to link anything but follows some unfathomable
rule about which links it will do and which it will tacitly ignore. It
purchased it for "improved" MSN Outlook Live functionality finding it to
behavor just like OL 2002 including not doing reminders unless I make it the
primary account (which does not work within my constraints)and not accessing
MSN shared calendars.

In fact at the moment I am out the dollars for the upgrade, I am out the
time to simply get as good as OL2002, and web access is still much more
functional than MSN Outlook Live. A is a real disappointment!

> Interesting you should say that. With a few notable exceptions like this
> one, most of us found Outlook 2003 the most improved version ever.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> >> > are
> >> > different is that OL 2002 was more usable and robust.)

Reply to this Message

Judy Gleeson MVP - Outlook - 04 Dec 2005 23:03 GMT

Having trained a few thousand people in 2002 and 2003 - I'm with you on this
one!

Judy Gleeson - MVP Outlook
Acorn Training and Consulting
Canberra, Australia

see what Outlook training can do to improve productivity:
www.acorntraining.com.au/pdfdocs/ProductivITwithOutlook.pps

www.acorntraining.com.au/productivit.htm

> The default for "Show in Groups" is rather annoying. The Business Contact
> Manager installed poorly (i.e. crashed OL) and is was that kind of sloppy
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> > >> > are
> > >> > different is that OL 2002 was more usable and robust.)

Reply to this Message