gossamer axe wrote:
> On 11/1/05, John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Neil Schneider wrote:
> > >
> > > I was reinstalling Windows on a system that had gotten so out of wack
> > > that it required a reinstall to fix it. I carefully saved all the data
> > > files to the (SAMBA) fileserver and dumped Outlook data into a .pst
> > > file. After the reinstall I went to import the .pst file and it
> > > wouldn't read it. It turns out that the computer had Office 2003
> > > originally installed and the customer gave me Office 2000 to
> > > reinstall. Why in the world would Microsoft change the file format for
> > > Outlook from one to the next version? Oh, that's right, it's a
> > > marketing decision, not a technical decision.
> >
> > Ever try putting your xfree86-4 config file in place for an xfree86-3
> > server? Did that work well?
>
> Outlook is ugly. We use it here at work, and frequently when we have to
> upgrade (because of new computers) things don't import right, the user loses
> months of email because the new Outlook and the older outlook don't import
> pst files, you have to archive it or back it up to get it to work right. I'd
> much rather fuss over an X config file anyday over upgrading/downgrading
> Outlook.
The point is, he was taking a Ooutlook data file, and applying it to a a
version that was three years younger. Very few applications are aware of
^^^^^^^
all the things that will be added in three years. I know of no
applications that can parse a future file formats whose format has
changed significantly, such as was seen from xfree86-3 to xfree86-4.
The only reason that an xconfig file could even be dealt with reasonably
in that situation is because there is documentation for both styles of
config files, and there are good tools (read: text editor) to manipulate
them. I doubt there exists either for .pst files.
> > -john
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
