Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30
  1. #1
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Anybody out there besides me (and Chris Pirillo for Lockergnome) think that with Office 2003 you pay a dear price in operating speed and smoothness for dubious gain?

    I'd had this feeling for a time, but I had set it aside... Until I read Chris's rant in the latest Lockergnome (and subsequent responses).

    Anybody else find this to be true?

    Can I retro back to 2000 from 2003?

    What about my Outlook pst file? If it won't migrate directly, can I export the whole thing and then re-import it into 2000?

    Whatcha all think?

    Regards,
    Chuck Billow
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    84,353
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    I have neither Office 2000 nor Office 2003, so I don't have an opinion about this issue, but in genereal, I don't think there is much point in trying to hold on to an older version. Each new version of Office has required more processing power, memory and disk space than its predecessor, but PCs have kept pace with that. It will be no different in the future.
    The longer you keep an older version, the more problems you will have when you eventually are forced to switch.

    If you want to go back to Office 2000, you must export your Outlook 2003 format .pst files to the format used in earlier versions. Then completely uninstall Office 2003 before reinstalling Office 2000. There are all kinds of things that can go wrong during this process, so if you have a working setup now, I wouldn't risk it.

  3. #3
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    3,788
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Hi Chuck

    I use 2003 and do not want to go back to 2000. For the issue with Outlook pst files see Microsoft Office Assistance: Use an Outlook 2003 .pst with earlier versions of Outlook

  4. #4
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,593
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 928 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    <img src=/S/ranton.gif border=0 alt=ranton width=66 height=37> One thing you must keep in mind is that people like Chris, who make their living reviewing and commenting about the tech world, must constantly find something to talk about in such as way as to retain (or enlarge) their audience. I've found over the years his commentary to have become more shrill and less relevant. So much so that I've quit reading anything from him or his minions. While MS deserves much of the criticism they receive they also continue to receive much undeserved criticism because "something was bad before it must still be bad" or 'they're the evil empire" or "I've got to dig into this product and find something to say to justify my existence". <img src=/S/rantoff.gif border=0 alt=rantoff width=66 height=37> Just my not so humble opinion.

    Joe
    Joe

  5. #5
    Platinum Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Vienna, Wien, Austria
    Posts
    5,009
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Although I have my doubts as to whether Office 2003 is worth the cost of upgrading from Office 2000, the trouble of reinstalling (Windows?) specifically to step back to 2000 is probably not worth the effort.

    The quality of the LGnome ezines declined for the very reason that Chris Pirillo originally kept it a one-man band: the quality of the other contributors doesn't even get into the ballpark. Only very recently has Chris started to contribute regularly again. I still don't agree with all he says, but, like Cringely, Woody, Peter Deegan and Rose Vines, I find him readable. Your point about headline-seekers definitely applies in other cases.
    Gre

  6. #6
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Joe:

    I WANT THOSE GRAPHICS!

    Yea, you may very well be right... It just seems that in 2000 I was moving forward, but in 2003, altough I learn how the 1he particular issue got there, there often is no direct fix.

    Sort of like a petulant child... But you can't correct them, because they are someone else's child.

    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  7. #7
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    unkamunka:

    I don't always feel necessarily qualified to agree or disagree with you and Joe, I think for the most part you're right.

    My only thing was/is that I had reached your conclusion *after* my upgrade. So then, since I was appearing to have more issues with limited or seemingly no apparent benefit, I thought I would take a look at my alternatives.

    Basically, even with all the hoopla, about Outlook in particular, I really like it.

    It just seems that there are not as many benefits as issues when comparing 2003 to 2000...

    Whether going back is worthwhile or again, more bother than its worth is another question.

    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  8. #8
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Hans:

    You CAN do it, the question isn't, I guess, How?, But rather "If?".

    If you don't use 2000 or 2003, what then? XP?

    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  9. #9
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Tony:

    Thanks...

    At least if I do, it doesn't seem like an impossibly complicated process.

    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  10. #10
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    84,353
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    I'm using Office XP at home, since that what we use at work.

  11. #11
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    I've heard that XP is pretty close to 2003, so most of the issues would be about the same...

    Regards,
    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  12. #12
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,593
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 928 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Chuck,

    Since I just ranted originally, I'll take the time to actually answer now. I agree with Han's original reply. Since you've invested the time and money to install and learn 2003, I think that you are better off making it work for you. Maybe you need some training or reading material on customizing it or tailoring it to your use. Have you purchased any books on the subject?

    Joe
    Joe

  13. #13
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Joe:

    I've got Woody's book on 2003... Although I'm not sure it's "the only book I'll ever need..."

    You may very well be right...

    When I was indoctrinating myself to 2000, it seemed that, however much I DID need to learn, that at least, when I had learned something or a way to deal with something, that I could move forward (with confidence) knowing that that solution was pretty stable.

    It just seems that this is not always the case with 2003... That I seem to have to spend a good deal of time re-doing... That the stability of the install isn't quite as good...and, to come back around to your question/ premise:

    The books that are pout there do not seem to approach Office, or any one of the modules, in a cohesive and "flowing" way... but rather disjointed and totally fragmented. The end result being that you are not really able to tell yourself "Okay, once I get through Chapters 2 - 7 (for instance), then I'll be OK... That when there IS an issue, that the cross-referencing is there to point you in the right direction.

    The upshot?

    That I end up relying primarily in my own trial and error. I think it was Hans that mentioned that if I would use the tools MS gave me (first) and not go outside the box so much, things might be better... He as well is probably right...

    I think in big part, I always approach software with a goal to achieve: I learned word processing in the mid seventies in order to type up a resume... That same motivating force is still alive and well... The problem being that one can (sometimes) find oneself in the middle of a quagmire I suppose...

    I'm sorry... I'll look and see if there is some type of class or book that could help...

    Regards,
    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  14. #14
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Joe et al:

    I guess I'm not the only one with a certain level of frustration:

    Office 12 makeover takes on 'feature creep'

    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  15. #15
    WS Lounge VIP rory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Burwash, East Sussex, United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,280
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 191 Times in 177 Posts

    Re: 2003 or 2000 (2003?)

    Chuck,
    A few observations:
    1. As regards your original question, I think you are the only one who can answer that. If your frustrations with the new Office outweigh any benefits, then why not go back to Office 2000. If, on the other hand, you have a need for the new features or to support others who do, then I guess you stick with it.
    2. As far as feature creep and/or application bloat go, I don't believe that is an argument anyone can ever win. For every person complaining about it there will be several others asking why certain features are not there "out of the box". When you consider the huge variety of uses that Office is put to, there will never be a correct balance for everyone (imagine if MS took say Excel back to its first incarnation but gave you a fully-featured VBA model to program anything else you needed - how many people would appreciate the streamlined nature of the program? <img src=/S/grin.gif border=0 alt=grin width=15 height=15>)
    3. As that article mentions, changing the way Office works will alienate some people even if, ultimately, it will make their lives easier - that I think is the nature of computers in general. In the end, it all comes down to people's willingness and ability to adapt and learn. Equally, if Office never changed, people would still be upset. <img src=/S/shrug.gif border=0 alt=shrug width=39 height=15> Obviously that would never happen because MS needs a revenue stream but the point still applies.
    4. For any Office book to be "the only book you'll ever need", I reckon it would have to be at least 30,000 pages, probably more. I also doubt it would flow terribly well - after all, it's not a novel; there needs to be a balance between readability from cover to cover and its usefulness as a reference for particular issues, which will naturally require a certain level of segregation of information.

    At the end of the day, as I'm sure you are well aware, it's horses for courses. If all you ever do with a spreadsheet program is balance your chequebook then you don't need Excel and it will probably seem unnecessarily complicated. If, on the other hand, you spend your life doing detailed business analysis, modelling and forecasting, you may find even Excel's feature list restrictive.
    Regards,
    Rory

    Microsoft MVP - Excel

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •