Print Using Code Without Defaults

[GµårÃïåñ]

I was wondering if anyone here had figured out a way to print via code
without using the .PrintOut method which sends it to a default printer but
rather have the print dialog pop up and allow the user to choose the printer,
such as a PDF printer or something. Any help would be appreciated.

What is being achieved: 1) Click a button, 2) Have emails in a certain
folder checked for several variables, 3) If certain criteria are met, then
msgbox you have something to print, then show the print dialog, 4) select
printer and then hit print, then done. TIA.

 

[Ken Slovak - [MVP - Outlook]]

That's the only way in Outlook.

Many of us do any formatted printing using Word or Excel automation to
output the desired information into a document or worksheet and then print
from there where you have much greater printing control.

 

[GµårÃïåñ]

Bummer, that sucks. Why such limitation? It seems counterintuitive.

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP]]

Not really, given that Outlook is not a document-centric application and
that much of the point of email is to replace paper communications.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Microsoft Outlook 2007 Programming:
Jumpstart for Power Users and Administrators
http://www.outlookcode.com/article.aspx?id=54

 

[Ken Slovak - [MVP - Outlook]]

Probably because MS has invested about $0 in enhancing printing since
Outlook 97.

 

[GµårÃïåñ]

Sue,

I have to respectfully disagree and say that this logic is even less
acceptable than the limitation. The fact is that printing is a function
inside the email program and regardless of the need to go paperless, the
function cannot be eliminated as some emails have legal and business
implications and must be printed. It is indeed a document-centric
application, just not the same way as say Word.

Not providing a better print option would be more of a flaw in the
programming model and lack of attention to details, not a matter of not being
necessary and therefore done poorly. They just got lazy as usual and decided
they know better what the user wants.

thanks for your input.

 

[GµårÃïåñ]

Ken,

I agree more with your position and say they have just simply failed the end
user and the developers rather than accept that the function is an
unreasonable request and hence why it is not implemented.

thanks for your input.