False. You didn't read carefully enough. You ignored the disclaimer: "In
certain configurations. " That disclaimer referred to Outlook 2000 in IMO
mode, which was actually Outlook Express. What you claim does not occur in
valid installations of Outlook 2003 unless you upgraded from IMO and have a
corrupt profile.

Signature
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
> False. You didn't read carefully enough. You ignored the disclaimer: "In
> certain configurations. " That disclaimer referred to Outlook 2000 in IMO
> mode,
*You* didn't read carefully enough, and I really doubt you've ever even
tried it -- and I really don't care for your tone! Why don't you give it
another read? What you're saying is 180 degrees out from that article.
(Rude and mistaken at the same time is a really bad combination.)
> which was actually Outlook Express.
That cannot possibly be the case, Outlook 2000 in any mode is not
"actually Outlook Express", it has the Outlook UI, complete with calendar,
task, notes and journal functionality. Also its MAPI interface is not an
extremely limited subset. None of these are true of Outlook Express.
What's more, it lacks the extra functionality that Outlook Express does
have, including the HTML editor and ability to view raw SMTP source.
They are two entirely different products -- where on earth did you get
such a crazy idea? That's the biggest wad of hooey I've seen in some time.
> What you claim
What I've observed...
> does not occur in valid installations of Outlook 2003 unless you upgraded
> from IMO and have a corrupt profile.
Firstly, from what I can see, there is no IMO in Outlook 2003, I just
installed fresh it on a virtual, and the default installation gives you 5
different email server types (including IMAP and Exchange Server) when you
add an account. Also, I do not see the "Reconfigure Mail" button anywhere
in the options dialog. Further still, a search of MSDN for IMO returns a
number of hits, all of them are either exclusively about OL2000, or include
sentences similar to this: "For Outlook 2000, you can install Outlook in the
Internet Mail Only (IMO) mode."
And the proof in the pudding is that, on a brand new, squeaky-clean
installation, absolutely nothing corrupt about it at all, setting the
UseOutlook registry config item WORKS.
The menu item I mentioned may well tie back to something in OL2000; clearly,
if you read and comprehend the Slipstick article, the functionality is
read-only in OL2000...
So, based on observations, testing multiple different configurations, what
you claim differs from what I've observed.
What are your statements based on?
-Mark
>>>I have a dilemma: I want to use Outlook for all my mail but todate, I
>>>found been advised that if I try to view my Hotmail account, I have to
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas as to what went wrong? Thank you.
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] - 23 Sep 2007 11:49 GMT
Sorry, but it is well established that Outlook 2000 in IMO actually used
Outlook Express address book engine and Simple MAPI for all its transports,
not Outlook's Extended MAPI transports. That is the whole reason it had to
share the WAB and required OE to be installed.
Sharing the WAB by using the Reg hack will have mixed results at best.
Accordingly, it is not recommended that you try to create Outlook Contacts
via the OE interface. It may work in some situations but is not a reliable
way to create Contacts as the OP discovered.

Signature
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
>
>> False. You didn't read carefully enough. You ignored the disclaimer: "In
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any ideas as to what went wrong? Thank you.
Mark J. McGinty - 25 Sep 2007 02:23 GMT
> Sorry, but it is well established that Outlook 2000 in IMO actually used
> Outlook Express address book engine and
If that was the case, why would WAB be read-only from Outlook? That makes
no sense. And if you're trying to say it did not store contacts in the PST
store, you're wrong -- yet again.
> Simple MAPI for all its transports,
All one of them? Even if it's true, so what?
> not Outlook's Extended MAPI transports. That is the whole reason it had to
> share the WAB and required OE to be installed.
> Sharing the WAB by using the Reg hack will have mixed results at best.
> Accordingly, it is not recommended that you try to create Outlook Contacts
> via the OE interface. It may work in some situations but is not a reliable
> way to create Contacts as the OP discovered.
The OP is using OL2000, which is documented to be read-only! First you try
to say that it'll only work if *not* in IMO, then I point out the flaw in
your statements, and now you have another song to sing? You obviously know
painfully little about this, but you should at least get your story
straight.
Please, in the future, make some effort to avoid spreading misinformation --
would that be too much to ask?
-Mark
>>> False. You didn't read carefully enough. You ignored the disclaimer: "In
>>> certain configurations. " That disclaimer referred to Outlook 2000 in
[quoted text clipped - 96 lines]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any ideas as to what went wrong? Thank you.
Russ Valentine [MVP-Outlook] - 25 Sep 2007 03:02 GMT
That was the request I was making of you. I said none of the things you
claim. The WAB file was never used, only the WAB engine. Contacts were
always stored in the PST file. But creating Contact Records in Outlook's PST
using the OE interface proved to be unreliable on many occasions and often
resulted in users losing data. Accordingly, we stopped recommending it years
ago.

Signature
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
>
>> Sorry, but it is well established that Outlook 2000 in IMO actually used
[quoted text clipped - 128 lines]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any ideas as to what went wrong? Thank you.