 |
 |
That's unfortunate - we have over 700 Office 2000 installations, with very few problems. In fact, most "problems" are just light "user needs training" issues. I can't even recall any major stability problems with Office at GM when they moved all of their engineers from Unix to Windows 2000 w/Office 2000. Like Tim said though: Outlook with Exchange rocks, but I really wouldn't advise using it for POP or IMAP services... that's what Outlook Express is for. Tony Cooke Information Technology Services The Eli Broad College of Business Michigan State University (517) 353-1646 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mccormack, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 1:10 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] office 2000 -> 2003? worthwhile? I would change because the entire office 2000 suite is horrible and unstable. Office 2000 has caused me nothing but problem after problems. You fix one problem, four weeks later it comes back. I hate office 2000 and think it should have never been released. Since changing to office 2003, I have had very little stability problems. It runs great. -----Original Message----- From: Peter J Murray [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 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