Re: SBS users - Outllook 2003 vs Office 2002

Yes thanks Les - I myself hate the use of WORD as email editor. When WORD
changes my spelling of "their words" into "there words" I get really
annoyed. Client got used to it with Office 2002 and expects to have the same
feature. Client does not have budget to upgrade to full Office 2003 - has
not got money's worth from Office 2002 yet. Monday I will uninstall Outlook
2003 and put back his Outloook 2002.


I guess by far the worst aspect of the installation experience was that
Exchange installed along without comment and then it seems it had had the
POP3 virtual server disabled without warning. Right clicking on the POP3
Virtual Server and choosing START failed [timed out] without explanation. I
actually looked at the POP3 Service in Services quite early in the piece and
decided that service was only the "POP3 connector" which I am not using
and it was supposed to be disabled. When there is a NON-GREYED out option
in the right click in Exchange - and it tries to run - wouldn't it be
helpful to bring up advice that this service 'named <...>" is disabled in
the Services screen. Wasted hours on trying to find that - finally typing
the message that Outlook client gets trying to pop email into the Search
field of MS KB elicted a KB article to the effect that the POP3 service
may be disabled.

[ PLEASE Nobody bother to POST to tell me that POP3 may be out of date and
we should all use RPC over HTTP. I know that - again I needed the POP3
virtual server becausethe client wants to continue POP3.]


Even yesterday I had to chase down why the Time Service was not working.
Again I found it disabled in services. Your own note Les, on this issue,
resides on M&M - but I did choose Direct Broadband connection and still the
time service got disabled - without any warning

I will try running CEICW again one quiet day when nobody is in the office.
Then restart all the services that get shut

It is almost as if some of this software is written by teams in separate
locations on opposite sides of the country.


Les its OK - I have cancelled my order for a Linux version of SBS. I seem
to have been in this game for long enough to have learnt better but I still
stick with it. Having done the early training for CITRIX on Windows 3.3
(1996-98 ?) - right in middle of day 2 of the course they annoiunced we
would NOT after all be getting the NT4 version of CITRIX since MS just
bought it ! So whenever that was..... way back in the good old days before
dynamic drives.

Cf to the price of Server, Exchange, SQL SBs is a good price. But that
assumes one needs all those. I have colleagues in TOP class companies
ripped out Exchange and run Linux mail servers


regards





"Les Connor [SBS Community Member - SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message news:OdLldR4zFHA.3756@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 2 notebooks 1 server. sbs domain or workgroup. fax forwarding. outlook sync.
    ... I think the most important part is the outlook and that's where my ... Please understand that our newsgroup is an issue based service, ... We strongly suggest you join the client computers into SBS domain. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: SBS 2003- Outlook fax
    ... First please understand the client must run with SBS Server in the same ... Outlook does support sending faxes. ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Exchange PLUS POP3
    ... I've had to modify this for all my clients...including my own SBS which is at R2 ... We even use RPC over http so our users can use Outlook from home. ... configuring the POP3 Locally. ... >> We originally were a POP3 users with our own Exchange Server setup>> on our ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Cannot receive External POP3 Email
    ... You make sure addresses are added to each user (a max of 75 because this is SBS) and change the MX record. ... I've *never* seen a 'complex' switch to SMTP. ... If the pop3 service is bundled with other services then they aren't really paying for it...it is free with the primary service they are paying for. ... I've *never* had a client balk because of price when presented with the two options. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: New Brooktrout fax board
    ... use the fax on the XP client. ... Generally speaking, after configuring the fax console on the SBS 2003, you ... Also if you can send the fax through outlook, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)