 |
 |
We have migrated to Office 2003. The biggest factor that made the transition worthwhile was the migration to Exchange 2003. As far as I can tell, this is the biggest improvement over the previous versions. Outlook has a better interface, and the pop-up previews of new messages are both improvements over previous versions, but they are minor in comparison to the better version of caching that is provided with Exchange 2003. The rest of the products in the suite have some minor changes, but nothing that I would call major. Some will undoubtedly argue that the inclusion of native XML support is a major change, but we do not use it very often. Therefore I would not place it as a major change. +-------------------------------------------+ | Michael Surato | | Resource Center for Persons | | with Disabilities | | Michigan State University | | 120 Bessey Hall | | East Lansing, MI 48824 | | Voice: (517) 353-9643 Fax: (517) 432-3191 | +-------------------------------------------+ -----Original Message----- From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter J Murray Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 11:23 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [MSUNAG] office 2000 -> 2003? worthwhile? At James Madison, we are currently running Office 2000 and while it's ok for the application side, Outlook 2000 is not a very good email client (slow, interface horrible). Is it worthwhile to go to 2003 Suite? Any thoughts? Our client computers all run Windows XP Pro on a W2K server active directory domain. Peter Murray James Madison IT