Why upgrade to Office 2003 if Office XP works

C

cam

I have been asked to answer the above question from my "IT manger".

You would laugh even more if you knew where I worked. But that would be
naughty of me.

To be honest the question has left me speachless! Where do I start? Is
it just me or does this guy live under a rock!

Could you guys help?

I know Microsoft stopped providing Calendar support for Office XP. But
does this extend to any other areas?

Can you think of as many reasons to change as possible please. I guess
I should really be objective and ask for any reason not to as well, but
only if your really board.
 
J

JoAnn Paules [MVP]

I have to agree with the IT guy this time. I just don't see a lot of
difference between the two (and yes, I use both at home) so if you don't
have to spend the money right now, why do it?

(If you had Office 97 that would be a different answer.)
 
C

cam

Perhaps I sholud mention if not exactly, I do work for an IT company
that advises the public on best practice and IMHO I think we should be
using the latest versions of everything.
 
J

JoAnn Paules [MVP]

I figured as much - and my opinion still stands. It is not essential that
everyone run the latest and greatest. End users need to use what works for
their purposes. HOWEVER, if someone is still using a DOS application, I
recommend they find a newer program that does the same thing. Other than
that, there are times when the old adage is appropriate: "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it."

Since you are an IT company that advises others, I can understand having one
seat of Office 2003 for comparison purposes.
 
C

Cam

I value your opinon, don't get me wrong, and if we where talkning about
a TV I would agree. But with Hotfixes comming out like a bad rash and
security an ever increasing problem surely it is wise to keep all
software as up to date as possible.
 
C

Cam

True, but from a best practise point of veiw all software should be
kept upto date even if you don't use it much.

I know for a fact that Microsoft don't full ysupport Office XP anymore
as they are no longer producing bank holiday updates for it. And I'm
sure there are other small things that they are trying to phase out, it
cost them a lot of money to support old products and as office 12 is
due very shorty surely it is wise to keep up, other wise you'll quicky
find yourself with old PC's/ Useless software and incompatibilty.

"If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what
you've always gotten"
 
M

Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User

If funds are not a problem, and you have the desire to run 'latest and
greatest', then buy Office 2003 now, and Office 2007 when released sometime
next year..
 
H

Harlan Grove

[email protected] wrote...
Perhaps I sholud mention if not exactly, I do work for an IT company
that advises the public on best practice and IMHO I think we should be
using the latest versions of everything.
Click to expand...

Why? Because that means more business for you? Fine. Be honest about
that, and YOU try to come up with some benefits of always using latest
versions. For myself, I'd never upgrade Microsoft software before the
first service pack is released, if then.

I don't know about others, but I could still do my job quite well using
Windows 2K and Office 2K, though I'm safely ensconced behind a
corporate firewall accessing the Internet through a proxy server. At
least with regard to Excel, the most noticeable additional features
from Excel 2K to the more recent versions are (1) colored worksheet
tabs, (2) much slower online help systems in 2002 and 2003, and (3)
@#$% Task Pains (misspelling intentional). As you should be able to
infer, I'd PREFER still to be using Office 2K.
 
H

Harlan Grove

JoAnn Paules [MVP] wrote...
I figured as much - and my opinion still stands. It is not essential that
everyone run the latest and greatest. End users need to use what works for
their purposes. HOWEVER, if someone is still using a DOS application, I
recommend they find a newer program that does the same thing. Other than
that, there are times when the old adage is appropriate: "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it."
Click to expand...
....

Why replace DOS machines/software? If DOS systems/software is still
running and giving correct or acceptable output/results, that kinda
defines robust. The biggest danger is that the product media for the
DOS software must now be quite old, and the older floopy disks get the
less reliable they become, so it'd be a very good idea to back up
product disks onto CD/Rs if not done already.

FWIW, there are a few Clipper applications still used where I work.
They run under Windows XP, but they're DOS executables. Some
manufacturers still use DOS machines for shop floor real time
monitoring and control. GUIs are overrated and nothing but unnecessary
overhead for batch or unattended programs.
 
H

Harlan Grove

Cam wrote...
I value your opinon, don't get me wrong, and if we where talkning about
a TV I would agree. But with Hotfixes comming out like a bad rash and
security an ever increasing problem surely it is wise to keep all
software as up to date as possible.
Click to expand...

If virus attacks were your concern, better to use Lotus SmartSuite.
Darn few viruses targetting it. And Lotus Notes server & client are
safer than Exchange/Outlook. Life is easier when you use software from
someone other than the 800-pound gorilla with the big red bullseye
painted on its back.
 
J

JoAnn Paules [MVP]

Hey, if a DOS system works and it's doing what you need, go for it. However
if you are trying to plug that data into a Windows app and it's not working,
then it's time to look for something else.

I used to sell computers and when someone would mention a DOS application, I
was honest and told them that there were no guarantees that they would run
properly in Win XP. A DOS emulator is not DOS. I had several people come in
b*tching that they were told their DOS programs would run, no problem. I
told them that only a fool would say that. It didn't make them happy but
what more could I do? I refuse to intentionally lie to someone.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
 
H

Harlan Grove

JoAnn Paules [MVP] wrote...
....
I used to sell computers and when someone would mention a DOS application, I
was honest and told them that there were no guarantees that they would run
properly in Win XP. A DOS emulator is not DOS. I had several people come in
b*tching that they were told their DOS programs would run, no problem. I
told them that only a fool would say that. It didn't make them happy but
what more could I do? I refuse to intentionally lie to someone.
Click to expand...
....

Don't disagree, but it depends on the software. DOS games usually need
DOS as the OS because they tend to work directly with the hardware.
Some DOS software does the same thing, e.g., Lotus 123 Releases 1.x and
2.x. DOS software from the Windows 3.x era, other than games, is
generally better behaved. Clipper apps and Lotus 123 Release 3.1 can
run under NT-ish Windows, FWLIW.
 
L

LVTravel

And last but definitely not least reason for NOT upgrading
to 2003 is the awful delay when you attempt to open a file
and have ANY mapped drives on the network that are not
available. The delay can be as long as 2 minutes with just
one misplaced map. Only occurs on Office 2003 file
management and not on XP or earlier Office products. Still
think that this is a bug in 2003 that should be fixed.
 
B

Bob I

To be perfectly blunt, if they are still using 2002, why waste a switch
to 2003 when 2007 is coming out in half a year?
 
Top