Re: SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002
- From: "Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:26:23 -0500
I'd be surprised if you didn't find Outlook 2k3 has a capable editor built
in ;-). More people used to complain about the loss of 'send to'
functionality when you mix older Office apps with Outlook 2k3 .... but they
soon forgive that when they discover how much better OL2k3 is than any
previous versions.
In any case, you don't have to use 2k3, you have downgrade rights. But to
use them would be a shame.
Too bad about the frontpage license - that's not good service. I don't know
how many folks are affected, as I think a very small percentage of SBS
owners ever install it.
It should in no way be a show-stopper, though. SBS is a fantastic product
offering great value. If your experience has been otherwise .... then let's
see what's the problem?
--
Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]
-----------------------------------------------------------
SBS Rocks !
----------------------
"Tell me and I'll forget. Show me and I'll remember. Involve me and I'll
understand." - Confucius
"Roger" <rogerdav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:umbAT%233zFHA.3000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Lets leave the matter of PST out of this thread. It has nothing to do
> with the issue except that if one is forced to take a user back from
> OUTLOOK 2003 to OUTLOOK 2002 one needs to convert the PST files -
> fortunately NOT all the earlier years archives - they stayed in 2002
> format.
>
>
>
> The issue is whether there is any way to configure OUTLOOK 2003 via
> registry or any other means to recognise earlier versions of WORD.
>
> If not it seems to put in question the concept of supplying OUTLOOK 2003
> licences with SBS2003 and per SBS CAL.
>
> It just adds to my general lack of satisfaction with the whole SBS2003
> experience.
>
> I am still waiting on MS Australia to ring back with a Product Key for the
> Front Page that is supposed to install using the Front Page CD Product Key
> supplied with the SBS licence. They promised to ring or email in 24
> hours - we are now out to 8 days.
>
> But now I too digress.
>
> regards
>
>
>
> "SuperGumby [SBS MVP]" <not@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ePXDeM2zFHA.1264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> they shouldn't be using PSTs, leave the mail in the mailbox.
>>
>> No. for word as editor it will only work if word is 2003.
>>
>> "SBS2003 Upgrader" <rogerdav@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:e2SDP01zFHA.1192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> The provision of Outlook 2003 licences with each SBS 2003 CAL seemed a
>>> good
>>> way to standardise everyone's email while those 30% using Office 2000
>>> and
>>> 40% Office 2002 could not afford to upgrade to office 2003.
>>>
>>> But it seems incompatible if one wants to use WORD as the email editor.
>>>
>>> Has anyone found a way to set Outlook 2003 to recognise Word 2002 as the
>>> email editor. The feature is greyed out. If I can not find a solution
>>> today I need to put back Outlook 2002. Fortunately there is a
>>> conversion
>>> facility to change 2003 PST files back to 2002 PST files but it is still
>>> a
>>> lot of trouble. I will not upgrade any more Office XP users to the
>>> SBS2003
>>> Outlook client.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002
- From: SBS2003 Upgrader
- Re: SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002
- References:
- SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002
- From: SBS2003 Upgrader
- SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002
- Prev by Date: Re: Security Issues
- Next by Date: Re: SBS2000 migration
- Previous by thread: SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002
- Next by thread: Re: SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
