Did you know that Outlook 2002 won't sync with VISTA?

[whuzizname]

Windows Mobile 5 devices came (and still come) bundled with Outlook 2002, but you need at least Outlook 2003 in order to sync with Windows Vista. Like many of you, I have a WM5 device and Outlook 2002. I also just got a PC with Vista.

(Vista uses "Windows Mobile Device Center" which replaces ActiveSync)

=========================================
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobi...icecenter.mspx

System Requirements

Windows Mobile Device Center is currently only available for the following versions of Microsoft Windows Vista™.

Microsoft® Outlook® XP, Microsoft® Outlook® 2003, and Microsoft® Outlook® 2007 messaging and collaboration clients are required for synchronization of e-mail, contacts, tasks and notes to a Personal Computer.

=========================================

So, a few questions:

1. Are there any alternatives, preferably free, to Outlook 2003 that will sync?

2. I just need to sync Calendar, Contacts, and Notes. I don't care about email. Is there a way without Outlook 2003?

THanks!

[Darius Wey]

Welcome to Pocket PC Thoughts.

Microsoft® Outlook® XP, Microsoft® Outlook® 2003, and Microsoft® Outlook® 2007 messaging and collaboration clients are required for synchronization of e-mail, contacts, tasks and notes to a Personal Computer.

Have you actually tried installing Outlook 2002 and seeing if it will sync? Outlook 2002 = Outlook XP, so the Windows Mobile Device Center (WMDC) supports it.

1. Are there any alternatives, preferably free, to Outlook 2003 that will sync?

None that will work with the WMDC. As for third-party sync alternatives, they exist, but only work with Thunderbird and other minor information management applications, and most lack stability as well as support for Vista.

[whuzizname]

Thanks for the reply!

I could not find Windows Mobile Device Center (WMDC) on my new laptop. Is that an optional piece of software or is it built-in? (My laptop has Vista Home Premium.)

Once I know this I can try my Outlook 2002.

Thanks again! :D

[Darius Wey]

I could not find Windows Mobile Device Center (WMDC) on my new laptop. Is that an optional piece of software or is it built-in? (My laptop has Vista Home Premium.)

It's a separate download. Actually, it's supposed to be made available through Windows Update, but I have yet to see this.

Anyway, head over to Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/devicecenter.mspx) for the download links. It's pretty straightforward from there.

[xerxers]

Whuzizname,

I would be just a tad cautious....

I upgraded from Xp to Home Vista premium. My synching worked for a very short period and then stopped synching. I spent upwards of 4 hours on the phone trying to get my synching back. We finally arrived at a point where I was going to have to reformat and some other fairly drastic measures to get it back and I decided against it and now only synch whilst in the office. A real pain.

MS technos determined that there is a registry issue but they didn't know where or how. Not too much help really.

I would suggest that youmake sure you have a restore point THEN load the software and then synch. In the meantime I would not load too much else until you are sure that everything is running just the way you want., and you can still use your last restore good point.

Sorry if i sound a little negative but I did not have a very happy experience loading Vista.

Now that I have had it running for a couple of months I am really enjoying it.

Xerxers

[whuzizname]

Thanks for all the advice, guys. :mrgreen:


I will download the WMDC and try it, but I'm still thinking that the Outlook 2002 that came with my PDA will not work. According to this, we all still need to get Outlook 2003 to sync with Vista. Outlook 2002 is not mentioned at all. :cry:

===============================


http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmobile/devicecenter.mspx

System Requirements

Windows Mobile Device Center is currently only available for the following versions of Microsoft Windows Vista™.


Windows Vista™ Ultimate
Windows Vista™ Enterprise
Windows Vista™ Business
Windows Vista™ Home Premium
Windows Vista™ Home Basic
Microsoft® Outlook® 2007, Microsoft Outlook XP, and Microsoft Outlook 2003 messaging and collaboration clients
Microsoft® Office 2003
Microsoft® Outlook® XP, Microsoft® Outlook® 2003, and Microsoft® Outlook® 2007 messaging and collaboration clients are required for synchronization of e-mail, contacts, tasks and notes to a Personal Computer.

[applejosh]

Outlook 2002 is the version of Outlook that is bundled with Office XP suites. Microsoft's marketing department really messed this up (IMHO) by giving different names to the same product. Basically, the individual apps are identified by the year (Word 2002, Excel 2002), but the bundles use "XP" as their identifier (Office XP Professional, Office XP Standard). (Example: http://support.microsoft.com/officehub) Although it looks like even they mess this part up when listing the requirements for the Vista connection software. (i.e. there is no Outlook XP; it is Outlook 2002 and bundled with various Office XP suites.)

Edit: Also, I installed the vista sync software (whatever they call it) on a new machine at a client's house so his wife could sync her device. They had Office XP (i.e. Outlook 2002). While I did not witness the syncing, I have not heard anything back from them other than that part actually works quite well. (Well meaning that he doesn't have to troubleshoot his wife's computer issues.) If only all the other software could work as well...

[theking2]

Welcome to Pocket PC Thoughts.

Microsoft® Outlook® XP, Microsoft® Outlook® 2003, and Microsoft® Outlook® 2007 messaging and collaboration clients are required for synchronization of e-mail, contacts, tasks and notes to a Personal Computer.

Have you actually tried installing Outlook 2002 and seeing if it will sync? Outlook 2002 = Outlook XP, so the Windows Mobile Device Center (WMDC) supports it.

1. Are there any alternatives, preferably free, to Outlook 2003 that will sync?

None that will work with the WMDC. As for third-party sync alternatives, they exist, but only work with Thunderbird and other minor information management applications, and most lack stability as well as support for Vista.

Acutally Outlook2002 does not install on Vista. It needs to "change" the file windows\system32\mapisvc.inf which the installer is not allowed to do. No luck here to install the bundled Outlook2002 (bundled with a freshly bought SamsungSGH-i600)

[theking2]

Welcome to Pocket PC Thoughts.

Microsoft® Outlook® XP, Microsoft® Outlook® 2003, and Microsoft® Outlook® 2007 messaging and collaboration clients are required for synchronization of e-mail, contacts, tasks and notes to a Personal Computer.

Have you actually tried installing Outlook 2002 and seeing if it will sync? Outlook 2002 = Outlook XP, so the Windows Mobile Device Center (WMDC) supports it.

1. Are there any alternatives, preferably free, to Outlook 2003 that will sync?

None that will work with the WMDC. As for third-party sync alternatives, they exist, but only work with Thunderbird and other minor information management applications, and most lack stability as well as support for Vista.

Acutally Outlook2002 does not install on Vista. It needs to "change" the file windows\system32\mapisvc.inf which the installer is not allowed to do. No luck here to install the bundled Outlook2002 (bundled with a freshly bought SamsungSGH-i600)

[theking2]

Welcome to Pocket PC Thoughts.

Microsoft® Outlook® XP, Microsoft® Outlook® 2003, and Microsoft® Outlook® 2007 messaging and collaboration clients are required for synchronization of e-mail, contacts, tasks and notes to a Personal Computer.

Have you actually tried installing Outlook 2002 and seeing if it will sync? Outlook 2002 = Outlook XP, so the Windows Mobile Device Center (WMDC) supports it.

1. Are there any alternatives, preferably free, to Outlook 2003 that will sync?

None that will work with the WMDC. As for third-party sync alternatives, they exist, but only work with Thunderbird and other minor information management applications, and most lack stability as well as support for Vista.

Acutally Outlook2002 does not install on Vista. It needs to "change" the file windows\system32\mapisvc.inf which the installer is not allowed to do. No luck here to install the bundled Outlook2002 (bundled with a freshly bought SamsungSGH-i600)

[VulcanTourist]

I gets worse: with ActiveSync 4.5, which those of us pre-Vista might use, Microsoft has dropped support for Outlook 2000 and, IIRC, also even Outlook 2002. I was amazed they didn't also make Windows XP SP2 mandatory for its use (I still use Windows 2000 SP4).

Don't you grok what's going on here? It's one of the oldest tricks in the corporate capitalists' bible: forcible obsolescence, or what you and I would otherwise call blackmail. They're using the Activesync platform and our dependence upon it to force us to upgrade to later versions of their other products.

This is exactly the kind of crap that landed Microsoft in court toe-to-toe with Federal antitrust lawyers. No mere figurative loss in court will ever make Microsoft lose the war, however... they just find sneaky little tactics like this for pulling the same manipulative crap. (I find it laughable that some people have suggested Bill Gates might have Asperger's Syndrome or be on the Spectrum, because NO self-respecting Aspie would ever condone that sort of manipulation much less actually engage in it.)

I think you can count on this getting worse with every new release of syncing software.

[Cybrid]

Don't you grok what's going on here? It's one of the oldest tricks in the corporate capitalists' bible: forcible obsolescence, or what you and I would otherwise call blackmail. Hmmm. Curious, are you still drivinq a Model T Ford? :)
The general population desire for "shiny" drives the need for improved hardware. Vista is pretty. If you had generations of hardware...you'd see it.
This then also drives the need for code which then needs to be tested. Um. That means you. :(

[VulcanTourist]

Vista isn't shiny under the hood. I have more generations of hardware than you. Giving people a rotting DRM-infested corpse that's been spray-painted with chrome doesn't make it shiny and only delays the stench. Adding bubblegum doesn't make it worth owning, either.

Just because an idiot is too ignorant to know better than to buy Vista doesn't mean it's ethical to sell it to him, nor does the fact that SOME people view it as shiny mean that it's actually constructive or qualifies as "progress". Progress by whose standards, Microsoft's? Microsoft has a very clear "progress" roadmap how they want to manipulate people to their corporate benefit, and that roadmap actually precedes the technology one they talk about publicly.

The latest Microsoft releases of syncing software are NOT shiny. Perhaps you'd also like to explain, in detail, exactly how Office 2007 is oh-so-much shinier than Office 2000?

[Cybrid]

I have more generations of hardware than you.An assumption but...if you booted them all at the same time and viewed the multitude of tasks you normally perform...It's shinier. Not necessarily more functional 80 but shinier.


The latest Microsoft releases of syncing software are NOT shiny. Perhaps you'd also like to explain, in detail, exactly how Office 2007 is oh-so-much shinier than Office 2000? Not necessarily more functional 80 but shinier.
You forget, or perhaps not having non-geek friends....
For "normal" people, The PC is like a tv. An appliance to check email, facebook and Youtube. The "linux?" "What's that?" crowd. Collectively it is those that buy and MS's marketing strategy.

[VulcanTourist]

You're still missing the point: it's not pretty graphics used to sell stuff merely of limited usefulness, it's pretty graphics and limited usefulness used to sell evil.

Here's a non-IT example: Norelco triple-head cordless razors. Every single one of them comes with an embedded NiCad battery that will fail after a few years. What's more, these razors won't run directly from the cord when that NiCad battery dies; they were deliberately designed with the batteries inline such that they cannot be bypassed. So, when those batteries fail, so too does the razor... completely. Even the ones that are specifically advertised as "corded/cordless" behave in this fashion. I know these things because I own one, and have also pinned a Norelco engineer down and made him admit that in fact this is the case.

None of that is to suggest that they're otherwise lousy razors; they're passable at the intended job. But those embedded non-user-serviceable batteries serve an ulterior motive for Norelco (and B&D and Braun and every other manufacturer who pulls this stunt): when that battery dies, they know full well the likelihood is that people will throw it away and buy a new one. Norelco is preying upon people's ignorance to sell more product.

That's exactly what Microsoft is doing, with Windows Vista, with ActiveSync, and even with the Office Suite. In the case of Vista, it gives buyers LESS control over their hardware than any other OS in history, thanks to the horrendous DRM built into both the OS and to some degree the hardware itself (HDCP/HDMI). In the case of ActiveSync 4.x, they actually REMOVED functionality - like wifi syncing - while at the same time placing further restrictions on what versions of other Microsoft software was compatible with it -- never mind that it won't work with any other software except Microsoft's. In the case of ActiveSync 4.5, it offers no new glitz or bubblegum or functionality at all to tempt your "normal" linux-what's-that people, while at the same time it takes away features upon which some of us were dependent. Why? Because Microsoft saw an opportunity to exploit their PC-PocketPC-integration monopoly to force people to buy newer versions of their products even when those people were otherwise satisfied with those products.

That's blackmail, by any "normal" person's definition. If Elliot Spitzer was aware of this little ActiveSync slight of hand, he'd have Microsoft back in court in a heartbeat.

[Cybrid]

You're still missing the point:

That's blackmail, by any "normal" person's definition. If Elliot Spitzer was aware of this little ActiveSync slight of hand, he'd have Microsoft back in court in a heartbeat.
I believe that you are also missing part of the point. You have a choice as a consumer to purchase whatever you'd like. Rather than *itch.
:lol:
Re: The Norelco, I've refused to buy Ipods, Ipaqs and whatever that did not have a user replaceable battery. I chose.

Re: AS 4.x, They removed it for the security issues. Rather than fix it or let us choose to live with the security risk.
You also have to remember Windows Mobile isn't all over the map yet. It isn't commonplace enough to be considered mainstream. refer to the non-geek friends.

Similarily You have the choice. On my vista machine, I have a secondary drive with Ubuntu, I chose.

[VulcanTourist]

You're still missing the point: said corporations (while perhaps comprised of individually good people) are deliberately and premeditatively trying to DENY potential customers their right and ability to choose, by withholding the knowledge people might use to make those choices, and in some cases (Big Pharma, esp.) deliberately trying to UN-learn the collective wisdom of centuries (in that case because they can't patent it and reap huge profits).

These corporations can achieve this effect with all but the most dedicated or obsessive or brilliant people. The fact that you conveniently happen to be in that minority is all the more reason for you to be standing up for the ethical rights of those who aren't. Instead, you can't seem to be bothered to care that they are being screwed-with in a huge way. Let the losers fend for themselves, huh?

On the average, you can't choose if you lack the knowledge to make the choice, and doubly so if the makers or sellers are actively trying to prevent you from acquiring that knowledge. If you think otherwise you're not even a decent Libertarian, much less socialist.

I think this three-legged horse of an argument needs a bullet now.

[Cybrid]

Let the losers fend for themselves, huh?

On the average, you can't choose if you lack the knowledge to make the choice, and doubly so if the makers or sellers are actively trying to prevent you from acquiring that knowledge. If you think otherwise you're not even a decent Libertarian, much less socialist.I've never claimed to be anything more than a humanitarian. :) I will happily teach someone to fix their computer. I refuse to however fix it for them. Similarly I will provide them with my assistance in any endeavor, should they need it, so long as I consider it to be a worthwhile investment in the common good. I concede your point that corporations are working to one goal...profit!...but I have found that in many an instance, the most common reaction to attempts to teach is "I don't wanna learn how...just make it work..."
It is they, the public that does not care. A compute r is an appliance to them. A toy. They don't visualize it as the gateway to the sum of all human knowledge.
As an experiment, ask a random person "What is a computer?"

[VulcanTourist]

I must concede the validity of your suggestion that the average human - or just American? - is basically "stupid": blissfully ignorant and happy - even hellbent! - to stay that way. I dearly wish I could change that. I guess I still labor under the delusion that I can. :cry:

I'm going back to playing with my new WM6 ROM and learning how to "cook" my own now. Stressing over how the universe should be is hell on my blood pressure.