You can certainly create a new PST file each year if you want, but it seems
an unnecessary strategy that I've never seen anyone employ. Simply archiving
messages is what most people do if they are worried about PST file size,
since messages are what change the most and what contribute the most to file
size. Your other data is relatively static. "DB corruption" can be avoided
by running the Inbox Repair Tool periodically and can be mitigated entirely
by frequent backups of your PST file. That's the most important thing you
can do before you change operating system or Office version.

If for some reason you decide you want a new PST file anyway, you should
never import data to the new file. Doing so will lose or misplace a lot of
your data. You simply copy and paste what you want from the old file into
the new.
Take a look at these pages for info on Outlook data backup or transfer:
http://www.slipstick.com/config/backup.htm
http://www.howto-outlook.com/Howto/backupandrestore.htm
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/as...771141033.aspx

--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"sylvaticus" wrote in message
...
Tonight I'll be buying Vista Utimate and Office 2007 Ultimate.

I like the idea of creating a new .pst file for each year: 2006.pst,
2007.pst, etc. Is this a bad idea? It keeps files small, and seems to me
it
would help avoid corruption of the DB.

I assume I would have to import contacts and calendar entries each year?

Or, will Archive allow me to create yearly archive files?

Whether I annually create a new .pst or archive file, will the new Desktop
Search be able to find emails, or will it only work with a file named
outlook.pst. For that matter, will Outlook insist on that?

Thanks for any .pst strategies you can offer. I can't wait for tonight!!

Keith