Author Topic: Still using Office 2003. (Read 8285 times)

ideus · « **on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 13:44:07 »

After a couple of years with Office 2013, and many more with Office 2010 I have returned back to use 2003 version. The reasons? well, I found the 2013 very slow to load and the only actual advantage for my use was the PDF direct import feature, the Power Point presentations have a bit more options, but nothing I cannot live without, the license went to my daughter's PC. The 2003 loads as fast as it can be, the only grip is that Outlook 2003 is very bad to be an IMAP client, or who knows, maybe I do not know how to configure it efficiently, instead, I am using Mozilla's Thunderbird.

Do you still use the Office 2003? Let us know your experience.

tp4tissue · « **Reply #1 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 14:41:15 »

I'm still using office 2003

but i can't be using excel 2003 hahahaha

fohat.digs · « **Reply #2 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 15:20:33 »

Office 2003 was my go-to for a very long time. I would be happy with it still if I hadn't gotten 2010 in a great deal and my kids get 365 free through their school.

But I am also steadily working my way into LibreOffice as much as possible because I like the concept of FOSS.

I also have my 2000 discs which are the last ones that can be installed on multiple computers and don't require activation.

ideus · « **Reply #3 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 15:25:50 »

We have four license for Office, 2003, 2010 and two 2013; but we just need three, however, I have found Office 2003 more than enough for my needs and it runs great on my Windows 7 machine.

Leslieann · « **Reply #4 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 18:04:39 »

My mom still uses 2003 (minus Outlook)
I think layout-wise, it made more sense than the later Metro layout.

I'm pretty sure one of the newer versions had a way to revert to non-metro (registry hack?), but it may have only been 2007, which was the worst of the bunch in terms of size and speed. Personally, I switched to Open Office long ago and haven't looked back.

I would love to take Outlook out to Trinity testing grounds, find a deep cave and nuke that damn thing. It's a massive resource hog and a nightmare to work with when something goes wrong. I have customers using it with 20-30 gig PST files and their systems CRAWL. One calls it her filing cabinet, she stores everything in it, her PST files combined are over 60gigs.

Off the top of my head,
Outlook 2003 has a recommended limit of 2gig PST files with severe speed degradation around 4gig. 2007 (garbage) and 2010 has a recommended limit of 4gigs, and suffers severe speed degradation around 12gigs (10 may be a little higher). 2013 has a recommended limit of 10 gigs I think and suffers severe degradation around 20. They also start experiencing data problems around this point.

Running 2003 on a 64bit system allows it to spread it's wings a bit (it's still limited by programming), most of it works well but I would avoid 2003 Outlook, and unfortunately it doesn't handle newer docs well (unless they added compatibility I'm unaware of). 64bit 2010 Office had compatibility problems (stick to 32bit), but Outlook works better than 2003 (use the 64bit version). Running 2013 on 32bit will actually cripple it, and while 64bit runs fine, you get an even worse layout than you did with 2010 in my opinion. I don't recommend anything newer.

Keep in mind, I only administer them and speak from that perspective, I don't use them, so user experience may be completely opposite.

slip84 · « **Reply #5 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 18:25:25 »

I prefer the newer releases, honestly. But I use them in a professional setting and collaborate with people on files. Compatibility, speed, and functionality are paramount to me. Having something 13+ years old doesn't make any sense.

Leslieann · « **Reply #6 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 19:12:08 »

Quote from: slip84 on Fri, 25 March 2016, 18:25:25

I prefer the newer releases, honestly. But I use them in a professional setting and collaborate with people on files. Compatibility, speed, and functionality are paramount to me. Having something 13+ years old doesn't make any sense.

I don't think it's so much a matter of age as much as what you need it for.
If all you're doing is typing a simple letter, 2003 works just fine, it's simple and does all you need. If you're writing news articles or something, the extra formatting tools in newer versions would be more beneficial.

Shapey Fiend · « **Reply #7 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 19:17:03 »

I don't think anybody liked the ribbon, ever, so I feel your preferences.

Unfortunately if you have to work with other people you need docx and whatever the other 2007 standards are unless you want to waste time converting stuff all the time. If you've a speedy PC the new versions of Office are pretty snappy. It's not like running Autocad or something. Perhaps if you're working on complicated excel files it is in fact I wouldn't know.

However if you can work in 2003 then why not? You can still work in 80's versions of Lotus Notes using the keyboard shortcuts and be far more productive if you so desire. The ****tiest thing about the move towards subscription based software, other than cost, is probably that we're going to end up with a one size fits all model.

slip84 · « **Reply #8 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 19:22:02 »

Quote from: Leslieann on Fri, 25 March 2016, 19:12:08

Quote from: slip84 on Fri, 25 March 2016, 18:25:25
I prefer the newer releases, honestly. But I use them in a professional setting and collaborate with people on files. Compatibility, speed, and functionality are paramount to me. Having something 13+ years old doesn't make any sense.
I don't think it's so much a matter of age as much as what you need it for.
If all you're doing is typing a simple letter, 2003 works just fine, it's simple and does all you need. If you're writing news articles or something, the extra formatting tools in newer versions would be more beneficial.

Right, which is my point. I work in a collaborative atmosphere and require some of the features built in with the newer releases. Office 2003 would literally prevent me from getting some of my work done, if not the majority of it. Namely, I couldn't even open some documents (I think they released a patch for 2003 that allows the "x" variant of files to open, but still).

However, yeah, if you're doing something simple, I don't see why you would really need more.

Also, the ribbons are amazing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an absolute stalwart. IMHO

Leslieann · « **Reply #9 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 19:56:34 »

Quote from: slip84 on Fri, 25 March 2016, 19:22:02

Right, which is my point. I work in a collaborative atmosphere and require some of the features built in with the newer releases. Office 2003 would literally prevent me from getting some of my work done, if not the majority of it. Namely, I couldn't even open some documents (I think they released a patch for 2003 that allows the "x" variant of files to open, but still).

However, yeah, if you're doing something simple, I don't see why you would really need more.

Also, the ribbons are amazing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an absolute stalwart. IMHO

If they shrank the buttons (some are quite large) they wouldn't need so many ribbons.

My biggest gripe though, and it is for my customers as well, is they cannot hit print with a simple button right in front of them. Print for almost every one of my customers is the button they use most. All those buttons, and no print. Maybe there is one, but I have yet to see a customer actually use it, they always end up going through file/print (and yes, I know ctrl-P). I get it, paperless offices, but many, many businesses still use and require paper.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #10 on:** Fri, 25 March 2016, 21:09:17 »

Quote from: slip84 on Fri, 25 March 2016, 19:22:02

Also, the ribbons are amazing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an absolute stalwart.

There are no words to describe how I loathe the ribbon, still to this day. When I started hearing about something new in Office, I said, "Well, OK, I don't really care as long as they don't change much under the "Format" tab."

Little did I realize that the most important tab to me, Format, was to be obliterated altogether and its vital functions scattered to the 4 winds.

rowdy · « **Reply #11 on:** Sat, 26 March 2016, 02:14:00 »

Most of work is still standardised on 2010.

One or two workstations still have older versions, probably 2003. One or two have newer workstations and got a newer Office pre-installed (maybe 2013).

I'd prefer to go back to pre-ribbon days. Menus were extremely similar, if not exactly the same, from version to version until the ribbon. Everyone knew where all the options were, and keyboard shortcuts were still a thing. Then the ribbon came along, and everything changed (usually for no reason). To this day I still struggle to find some functions, searching through each page of the ribbon until I find a button that sounds likely, and futilely trying it.

Then a ribbon appeared in Explorer in Windows 10. I hate it completely.

At home I use LibreOffice, mainly so me and my other half can easily exchange documents between Mac and Windows (and sometimes Linux, although not as much these days). I have tried to convert work to LibreOffice (free to install, free updates, cross-platform, simple menu, high Microsoft compatibility, preferred by an increasing number of large companies and governments (although not in Australia yet)), but because some of our clients are heavily invested in Microsoft, we have to copy them.

zhihuichan · « **Reply #12 on:** Sat, 26 March 2016, 03:08:30 »

Still using CAD R14! Anyone else?

iLLucionist · « **Reply #13 on:** Sat, 26 March 2016, 07:45:09 »

Actually, I'm moving away from .DOC / .DOCX and moving towards plain text files with vim. I even do most tabulation in vim now.

On my Mac, Excel and Word (2016, but also earlier releases) is so slow, I want to shoot myself in the foot. And I almost never need fancy formatting. I'm a researcher and software developer. I don't go further than styles and formatting and headings, paragraphs, and an occasional table.

And I have noticed SEVERAL TIMES still today that word/excel on Mac (including formulas.. troubling when you do stats and publish papers) turn out differently on Windows. f**k that.

fohat.digs · « **Reply #14 on:** Sat, 26 March 2016, 10:24:51 »

Quote from: iLLucionist on Sat, 26 March 2016, 07:45:09

Actually, I'm moving away from .DOC / .DOCX and moving towards plain text files

Personally, I have always kept my defaults set to .DOC and .XLS and needing anything further is very rare for me. It keeps everything much cleaner.

Altis · « **Reply #15 on:** Mon, 28 March 2016, 22:13:42 »

Quote from: iLLucionist on Sat, 26 March 2016, 07:45:09

Actually, I'm moving away from .DOC / .DOCX and moving towards plain text files with vim. I even do most tabulation in vim now.

On my Mac, Excel and Word (2016, but also earlier releases) is so slow, I want to shoot myself in the foot. And I almost never need fancy formatting. I'm a researcher and software developer. I don't go further than styles and formatting and headings, paragraphs, and an occasional table.

And I have noticed SEVERAL TIMES still today that word/excel on Mac (including formulas.. troubling when you do stats and publish papers) turn out differently on Windows. f**k that.

If you're looking for something widely compatible, very lightweight, and allows just a hint of formatting, Rich Text Format isn't bad.

I've been using it more frequently these days and it saves a lot of overhead and headache, but still allows me to make files that appear better formatted than plain text.

ideus · « **Reply #16 on:** Mon, 28 March 2016, 22:22:27 »

Win 7 Ultimate, TeXnicCenter - Latex Editor, Excel 2003.

ika · « **Reply #17 on:** Mon, 28 March 2016, 22:29:43 »

I don't mind the ribbon in its 2007 form, as I can still find most things the old way. 2013 moved things again, though, and made some functions inconveniently hard to find. 2003 and 2007 are my favs.

SpAmRaY · « **Reply #18 on:** Mon, 28 March 2016, 22:36:00 »

Quote from: zhihuichan on Sat, 26 March 2016, 03:08:30

Still using CAD R14! Anyone else?

I wish all programs worked like cad, I'm always trying to type in commands in office products.

iLLucionist · « **Reply #19 on:** Tue, 29 March 2016, 04:49:00 »

Quote from: SpAmRaY on Mon, 28 March 2016, 22:36:00

Quote from: zhihuichan on Sat, 26 March 2016, 03:08:30
Still using CAD R14! Anyone else?
I wish all programs worked like cad, I'm always trying to type in commands in office products.

I wish every program worked like vim. That's why I ditched almost all apps and use plain text so I can use vim. There's only a few exceptions like SPSS for me.