Differences between Office 2000 and Office 2002 (aka XP)?

[Force Flow]

What are some differences between the two? Anything major? Would it be worth getting?

[morriswindgate]

From what I have seen 2000 is better, XP was supposed to be more secure, but to do this it prevents you from doing things link mailing a link to someone. This is outlook of course, as the rest of the stuff is pretty much the same.

[Tuf]

I like 2000 better but I think it's because I'm more used to it. The applications in XP do integrate better if you can figure out how to do it.

If you have 2000 I don't think it's worth the money to upgrade myself. In fact if you have 97 I don't think it's worth it.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Office XP has the MPA.

[glc]

I'm still using 97 and have no need to upgrade. If it weren't for a couple features I use all the time I'd be totally switched to OpenOffice.

[sdkfz]

If you have 2K I would stay there, I upgraded from 97 mainly because 97 was the oldest 'upgrade from' to xp and I wanted to be able to stay in the upgrade pricing, of course now I found this site and newegg for oem so that reason went away..

lets see, voice recognition works pretty well, but you can not listen to music/tv and VR cause it will pick up bits and transcribe to the document

[mairving]

There are only 2 service packs for Office XP but there are 3 for Office 2000. There is still plenty of time for more service packs for XP though.

I use Office 97 as well but it is not very well suited for XP/2K machines since it is not multi-user friendly.

[Force Flow]

Originally posted by Nuclear Krusader Office XP has the MPA.

What's that?

[mairving]

Originally posted by force_flow2002 What's that?

The dreaded Microsoft Product Activation

[Force Flow]

Oh.

I guess that's settled then. Since there doesn't seem to be any blaringly obvious differences, I'll stay with Office 2000.

[Tuf]

The web intefration in Office XP is much better and more seamless. I don't make webdocuments so that means nothing to me. That is it's major selling point.

Most power users of Office haven't upgraded or if they did they have gone back to 2000.

[AlwaysUp]

I probaly should start a new thread, but it was mentioned....albeit not in same sentence..

Should a Office 97 Professional version user that has installed it on new Win 2K build, do each and every SP release, patch, and security update available at Office Update site?

[glc]

To do it right, you should apply SP1 then SP2. I haven't bothered with all the other patches but I suppose I should one of these days before they kill support for 97.

[Tuf]

Office 2000 requires you install SP1 first then you can install SP3. You don't have to install SP2 at all if you haven't.

[mairving]

I think that all of the Office products require that the SP's be installed in order. I know with Office 97, you have to reboot after each one. With Office XP, no reboot is necessary but you have to install SP1 before SP2.

One of the biggest problems that I face with using Office 97 on NT (NT, 2K,XP) machines is that it only installs it doesn't install as ALL USER, but as the logged on user. So you have to copy the program over. You also have to make users admin on that local machine to get things (program won't open, spell check won't work, can't save templates, can't view attachments, etc.) to work properly.