B
Ben Silverstein
What is the best way to synchronize Outlook data between
two XP Professional computers (desktop & notebook)?
two XP Professional computers (desktop & notebook)?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
Jocelyn Fiorello [MVP - Outlook]
See if the information on the following page helps:
http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/sync.htm
--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook
*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please
reply only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***
In
http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/sync.htm
--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook
*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please
reply only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***
In
G
Grant Robertson
In news:[email protected],
Yeah, everyone just keeps saying "Go to SlipStick. Go to SlipStick. Go to
SlipStick." And all it does is kill any discussion of the topic because
people see this answer and assume that it is a real answer and move on.
How much are you guys getting paid to push this site anyway? While it
does have some good info in other areas, it definitely does not answer
the question I keep seeing over and over again...
"What is the BEST way to synchronize .PST files?"
All SlipStick does is list a bunch of commercial products with a little
blurb for each that appears to be written by the manufacturer. There is
no review. No discussion of how they work or how they compare.
I just spent the day researching these things and I'm pretty much coming
up with nothing really interesting.
There are about 4 products that will directly sync .PST files. Outlook
Plus! at www.outlook-plus.com, QSynchronization at
www.outlookfolders.biz/Lang/English/QSync/qsync1.htm which is a German
company, OutlookSync at www.curosoft.com/outlooksync.html, and SyncPst
from www.synchpst.com.
Outlook Plus! seems to be primarily designed for sharing multiple users
with a central database but also has a feature for syncing with a
notebook. From their web site it seems to be kinda kludged on. A little
tidbit I found buried in their web site is that the software can only
handle about 10 users. This makes it sound to me as if the program isn't
too very robust.
"QSynchronization for Outlook 1.4 (49 euros) lets you share information
in a variety of folders, but to use it, Outlook can be open on only one
machine at a time. Also, the program is not especially well documented
and is riddled with inconsistent spellings and error messages in German"
Pasted from <http://www.pcmag.com/print_article/0,3048,a=
30102,00.asp>
It also seemed to me that it was an add-on for another product that they
have called Outlook Folders but I couldn't quite tell. They did give the
most technical information about how their product worked.
The web site for OutlookSync was practically barren. It looks as if the
program was written by a bunch of college students who are trying to look
professional and failing. But, who knows, the program might be great. I
just don't want to trust my data to even trying the thing out. Yes, I
know I could make a backup but it's just not worth the trouble to try a
product that won't even give me any more information about their product
than a few screen shots.
Finally, there is SyncPst which seems like it might be OK. It's the one I
would be most likely to try first.
I wasn't able to find any reviews on any of these products other than the
one quoted above for QSynchronization. One thing I am pretty sure of is
that none of these sync at any level lower than the item itself and that
they base everything on the subject/name and last modification date.
Whichever item has the latest modification date wins. If I change the
main number for a contact on my desktop and the FAX number on my laptop
then only one of them is going to appear in the updated database. To me,
this is just unacceptable.
What I am seriously considering is to just use my Palm Handheld to synch
between my desktop and my laptop. This, of course, is a solution that
would never be suggested by a MS MVP. The built in Palm databases do not
contain all the same fields that are in Outlook. They only hold one
address, for instance, and they can only have one category associated
with each entry. However, there are two products now available that claim
to allow you to synchronize ALL of the Outlook fields to a proprietary
database on the Palm. They are Beyond Contacts from www.dataviz.com and
Key Contacts from www.chapura.com. Palm users know that there are a lot
of apps that make use of the built in databases so switching to a
proprietary database is kind of a big deal but it may be worth it.
Finally, there is a product called MiGo at www.4migo.com that also looks
promising. It is a USB drive with included software that supposedly
allows you bring your entire desktop environment with you in your pocket.
sound's nice but their web site is big on hype and short on real info.
I've always found these types of things to be too good to be true. I
haven't seen any real discussion from anyone who has actually used it in
real life.
There, now hopefully this will start some real discussion on the topic.
Yeah, everyone just keeps saying "Go to SlipStick. Go to SlipStick. Go to
SlipStick." And all it does is kill any discussion of the topic because
people see this answer and assume that it is a real answer and move on.
How much are you guys getting paid to push this site anyway? While it
does have some good info in other areas, it definitely does not answer
the question I keep seeing over and over again...
"What is the BEST way to synchronize .PST files?"
All SlipStick does is list a bunch of commercial products with a little
blurb for each that appears to be written by the manufacturer. There is
no review. No discussion of how they work or how they compare.
I just spent the day researching these things and I'm pretty much coming
up with nothing really interesting.
There are about 4 products that will directly sync .PST files. Outlook
Plus! at www.outlook-plus.com, QSynchronization at
www.outlookfolders.biz/Lang/English/QSync/qsync1.htm which is a German
company, OutlookSync at www.curosoft.com/outlooksync.html, and SyncPst
from www.synchpst.com.
Outlook Plus! seems to be primarily designed for sharing multiple users
with a central database but also has a feature for syncing with a
notebook. From their web site it seems to be kinda kludged on. A little
tidbit I found buried in their web site is that the software can only
handle about 10 users. This makes it sound to me as if the program isn't
too very robust.
"QSynchronization for Outlook 1.4 (49 euros) lets you share information
in a variety of folders, but to use it, Outlook can be open on only one
machine at a time. Also, the program is not especially well documented
and is riddled with inconsistent spellings and error messages in German"
Pasted from <http://www.pcmag.com/print_article/0,3048,a=
30102,00.asp>
It also seemed to me that it was an add-on for another product that they
have called Outlook Folders but I couldn't quite tell. They did give the
most technical information about how their product worked.
The web site for OutlookSync was practically barren. It looks as if the
program was written by a bunch of college students who are trying to look
professional and failing. But, who knows, the program might be great. I
just don't want to trust my data to even trying the thing out. Yes, I
know I could make a backup but it's just not worth the trouble to try a
product that won't even give me any more information about their product
than a few screen shots.
Finally, there is SyncPst which seems like it might be OK. It's the one I
would be most likely to try first.
I wasn't able to find any reviews on any of these products other than the
one quoted above for QSynchronization. One thing I am pretty sure of is
that none of these sync at any level lower than the item itself and that
they base everything on the subject/name and last modification date.
Whichever item has the latest modification date wins. If I change the
main number for a contact on my desktop and the FAX number on my laptop
then only one of them is going to appear in the updated database. To me,
this is just unacceptable.
What I am seriously considering is to just use my Palm Handheld to synch
between my desktop and my laptop. This, of course, is a solution that
would never be suggested by a MS MVP. The built in Palm databases do not
contain all the same fields that are in Outlook. They only hold one
address, for instance, and they can only have one category associated
with each entry. However, there are two products now available that claim
to allow you to synchronize ALL of the Outlook fields to a proprietary
database on the Palm. They are Beyond Contacts from www.dataviz.com and
Key Contacts from www.chapura.com. Palm users know that there are a lot
of apps that make use of the built in databases so switching to a
proprietary database is kind of a big deal but it may be worth it.
Finally, there is a product called MiGo at www.4migo.com that also looks
promising. It is a USB drive with included software that supposedly
allows you bring your entire desktop environment with you in your pocket.
sound's nice but their web site is big on hype and short on real info.
I've always found these types of things to be too good to be true. I
haven't seen any real discussion from anyone who has actually used it in
real life.
There, now hopefully this will start some real discussion on the topic.
J
Jocelyn Fiorello [MVP - Outlook]
You say tomAYto, I say toMAHto. You have the time and inclination to post
5K worth of personal experience on the topic; I want to try to help one
person as quickly as possible by pointing them to a pertinent article on a
very comprehensive and widely recognized website by a fellow Outlook MVP,
rather than rewriting it myself, and move on to try to help the next person.
Each method has its merits and I don't see what the problem is, especially
when most people don't seem to care as long as they're getting help.
--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook
*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please
reply only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***
In
5K worth of personal experience on the topic; I want to try to help one
person as quickly as possible by pointing them to a pertinent article on a
very comprehensive and widely recognized website by a fellow Outlook MVP,
rather than rewriting it myself, and move on to try to help the next person.
Each method has its merits and I don't see what the problem is, especially
when most people don't seem to care as long as they're getting help.
--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook
*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please
reply only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***
In
J
JT
I tend to agree with Grant on this topic. After researching how to
synchronize data files and Outlook data between a laptop and a
desktop, it's clear that Microsoft has not come up with an acceptable
process to do either. Jocelyn, your answer seems to reflect
Microsoft's response to numerous posts for both questions, which can
be summarized by the following...MS "We still don't know how to do
this ourselves (even in XP), so go to this site, and hopefully you'll
give up and stop bothering us." I find it hilarious that some of those
links still refer to Outlook 97. Glad Microsoft has made huge advances
since. Maybe by Outlook 2010 this will be a streamlined process.
Seriously though, I do hope that all these MS-MVP's are forwarding
these problems to the software developers to be addressed one day.
synchronize data files and Outlook data between a laptop and a
desktop, it's clear that Microsoft has not come up with an acceptable
process to do either. Jocelyn, your answer seems to reflect
Microsoft's response to numerous posts for both questions, which can
be summarized by the following...MS "We still don't know how to do
this ourselves (even in XP), so go to this site, and hopefully you'll
give up and stop bothering us." I find it hilarious that some of those
links still refer to Outlook 97. Glad Microsoft has made huge advances
since. Maybe by Outlook 2010 this will be a streamlined process.
Seriously though, I do hope that all these MS-MVP's are forwarding
these problems to the software developers to be addressed one day.
J
Jocelyn Fiorello [MVP - Outlook]
If we didn't want to be bothered, we wouldn't post at all. When trying to
help someone, IMHO, it makes sense to start with the simple questions or
directions on where to find help, and then go deeper if necessary (which it
often isn't). There's nothing stopping you or the other poster from
starting your own thread, forum, website, whatever to discuss these issues
if you feel they're not being covered well enough here.
BTW, there are still LOTS of people out there using Outlook 97.
--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook
*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please
reply only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***
In
help someone, IMHO, it makes sense to start with the simple questions or
directions on where to find help, and then go deeper if necessary (which it
often isn't). There's nothing stopping you or the other poster from
starting your own thread, forum, website, whatever to discuss these issues
if you feel they're not being covered well enough here.
BTW, there are still LOTS of people out there using Outlook 97.
--
Jocelyn Fiorello
MVP - Outlook
*** Messages sent to my e-mail address will NOT be answered -- please
reply only to the newsgroup to preserve the message thread. ***
In