[Issue] Windows Address Book and Vista 64-bit

[Mark.Irving]

I used to use OOo Base to link to my Windows XP "Windows Address Book." Now I'm using OOo on Windows Vista Home Premium (64-bit), when I try to set up a new database connected to the "Microsoft Windows Address Book" I can't get it to work.

I can select the database in the OOo Database Wizard, go on to save the .odb file, and open it. Then when I click on the "Tables" icon, I get a pop-up message:-

[OpenOffice.org Base]
The connection to the data source "odb-file" could not be established.
No Outlook Express Addressbook Exists.
[OK]

Is this a mistake by me? If so, what should I do differently?

Is it a problem with OOo and my edition of Vista? Perhaps a problem with a 32-bit OOo application trying to connect to a 64-bit database object?

There are some addresses in my Vista address book; it's not empty. Vista calls them "Contacts."

[DrewJensen]

When you create the Base file do you select "Outlook Express" or "Windows Address Book" as the type of external database?

If you try the other one does it change things?

[Mark.Irving]

When you create the Base file do you select "Outlook Express" or "Windows Address Book" as the type of external database?

I used "Microsoft Windows Address Book"

If you try the other one does it change things?

The other is "Microsoft Outlook Address Book" and I have tried this; it doesn't work either. It gets exactly as far, until I click on the Tables icon; then the text of the error message differs.

I've just borrowed a computer running 32-bit Vista for a minute or two; same behaviour as my home machine's 64-bit Vista. On Windows XP, the Microsoft Windows Address Book shows as having one table, called "OE Contacts" but which -- on my work computer, where I don't use these -- may have no (zero) rows in it.

[DrewJensen]

That should not do it - I have setup Base against an empty address book - it comes up as an empty table.

I don't have Vista available to test on. They do in the internal QA group - I will post an email to the mailing list and ask if someone running 64 bit Vista can give this a quick try - if it fails for them then someone will open a defect report in the Issue tracker. I'll send the email this morning and post back when I get a response.

[Mark.Irving]

Thank you very much for investigating!

My one check on 32-bit Vista suggests that my problem happens there, too, so it's probably not specific to the 64-bit versions. (I've tried Home Premium 64-bit and Business 32-bit, with, at least on a very quick check for Business, the same problem.)

[Mark.Irving]

Encouraged by Drew (thank you very much), I have reported this problem as http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91079 . It does look as though there are significant differences in this area between Vista and earlier versions of Windows (look up the WABOpen function and class CLSID_ContactManager, if you are a programmer who likes this sort of thing).

[nikelaj]

I am second for this. I voted for the issue then just begging for the fix.
Really I can't believe that noboby tested or tried ever creating address book in Vista + OOo. Nobody really needn't it? I think Address Book interaction is one of the great and core features of OOo. I am highly wondered what average people doing with their computers?

[Sniffle]

Windows Vista saves contacts differently than Windows XP. Contacts are not saved in a single *.wab data file. In Vista, each contact has it's own *.contact file in the %ROOT%:\Users\%Username%\Contacts folder. When you select Windows Address Book or Outlook Express, it's looking for a *.wab . As far as I am aware, Base does not have a way to process *.contact files currently. Or merge them each into one list.

[Mark.Irving]

After a lot of struggling, I have traced the cause of this problem and identified a work-round. You can read the details in the reported issue as http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=91079 but I am afraid the work-round involves modifying the Windows registry as a user with administrator access.

The fix will need someone to modify Mozilla's source code, because OOo sensibly uses Thunderbird and SeaMonkey's technology for address books, and that's where the mistake originates. With luck we might get a fix for OOo 3.3.1 or 3.4, but it's too late for the imminent release 3.3 to include it.

At last I can use OOo to prepare my Christmas card address labels - although three years late.