> Lots of users got stung by Microsoft's sleight of hand with IMO mode.
> Microsoft never documented or warned users that they were actually using
> Outlook Express rather than Outlook for many functions, so many users lost
> data when they migrated to later versions.
> --
> Russ Valentine
> [MVP-Outlook]
> "BillS" discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6096EB22-90D3-4020-947D-BE7AAA379E54@microsoft.com...

>> Thanks. I haven't used Outlook Express for years. It's unfortunate there
>> was
>> not some warning at some point, as I had an extensive address book and
>> made
>> much use of the obsolete 'groups.' Thanks again for the info.
>>
>>
>> "Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]" wrote:
>>

>>> Probably not. From your description, it sounds like you were using
>>> Outlook
>>> 2000 in the horrid Internet Mail Only mode, which shares address book
>>> functionality with Outlook Express, making it possible for people to
>>> create a
>>> type of "group" that isn't supported in later Outlook versions. The only
>>> "groups" that will work in Outlook 2002 are those distribution lists in
>>> your
>>> Contacts folder.
>>>
>>> Just a wild shot -- maybe some of that lost information was actually in
>>> Outlook Express not Outlook. Wouldn't hurt to look. If it's not there,
>>> you
>>> should be able to find the addresses in old email messages and create new
>>> contacts from those addresses.
>>> --
>>> Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
>>> Author of Microsoft Outlook 2007 Programming:
>>> Jumpstart for Power Users and Administrators
>>> http://www.outlookcode.com/article.aspx?id=54
>>>
>>> "BillS" wrote:
>>>

>>>> I upgraded from Office 2000 to Office XP yesterday. When I did, I lost
>>>> much
>>>> of my Address book.
>>>>
>>>> My Outlook 2000 address book had several groupings (? maybe not the
>>>> right
>>>> term) of email addresses. The distribution lists and non-grouped
>>>> addresses
>>>> came over, but none of my groups came over, and that is where the
>>>> addresses I
>>>> used most frequently were kept. Is there any way to retrieve them?
>>>> Thanks.

>