Office 2003 Upgrade question

[doctorgonzo]

We're currently using Office 2000, and it works just fine for our needs. I've been given a copy of Office 2003 to look at, and aside from some more security warnings I see when opening an Access database, not much is different.

Using Access and performing mail merges are two of the most important things that need to be done here, so anything that screws up those functions is no good (I passed on upgrading to Office XP because of complaints on the mail merge function). Is there anything in Office 2003 that makes it worthwhile to upgrade from 2000, or should I stick with the tried and true?

[mairving]

I like it a little better than XP, much better than 2000. It seems to be less buggy but a little more resource hungry. Haven't used Access on it though.

[doctorgonzo]

Are there any specific features that you like, or is it just generally a better program?

[EzyStvy]

I've used Office 95, 97, seems like there was a 98 version, 2000, 2002 and now 2003.

I really liked 2000 and still use it on a couple of machines. 2003 is like the other upgrades-> More bells and whistles. Biggest change is with Outlook. It has a new file structure to get past the 2gig pst file size limit...

[sdkfz]

Dr,

There is a bug in the Access import text wizard, the second and subsequent fields can not be edited for data type without a MS Access patch- not sure which one it was but it was a recent one, I did not notice the fix till just a short while ago.

My fix was to import the txt to new table, delte data, edit data types and re import. I could have set up the table manually, but I always goofed it somehow so this worked the safest for me.

Othersie the mail merge works just as well as XP, I jumped from 97 to XP , then to 2003 so I can not vouch for 2000.

[IronMentality]

I have read in multiple places the only significant improvements from Office XP to 2003 was the new fixes in Outlook and some new stuff in Excel. 2003 also I have read is essentially XP with the fixings that XP did not have. Obviously, more additions were made in all programs (for example, XML in Word) but not necessarily to justify a full upgrade to Office 2003 except for Outlook and possibly Frontpage.

Our first Office edition was 2000, and it's a good program. One of the advantages of Office 2000 is you can install it on any amount of computers you own unlike XP and 2003. If your low on funds, this is probably the way to go.

If you have the funds, pull the trigger on the 2003 upgrade only if you are going to be playing with Word, Excel, Outlook, and Frontpage. I do not know offhand of any dramatic changes to Access other then it looks prettier then previous versions.

[glc]

The only significant core application upgrades throughout the versions of Office since 97 have been with Outlook. Everything else isn't worth writing home about in my opinion. I don't use Outlook, so I'm still quite happy with Office 97, I haven't come across anything that would make the upgrade worth it to me.

[mairving]

Originally Posted by IronMentality Our first Office edition was 2000, and it's a good program. One of the advantages of Office 2000 is you can install it on any amount of computers you own unlike XP and 2003. If your low on funds, this is probably the way to go.

True but illegal.

There are some people that really don't like the mail merge in XP and above. It forces you through a wizard. Other than that they appear to be a bit less buggy. I did have a Outlook XP bug out on me the other day for the first time in memory when someone tried to adjust one of the toolbars. Problem was solved by turning off Word as the editor. Some of the other big things are mostly to do with Outlook and there is more customization in the admin install as to how you want the programs to install. Some of the other is cosmetic. Outlook 2003 has a desktop notification that is pretty cool.