Upgrade from Outlook 2003 or no?
April 21, 2011 5:36 PM   Subscribe

Should I upgrade from Outlook 2003 or just keep using it forever?

I've been using Outlook 2003 as my email client since, well, 2003. I don't have any issues with it, just a nagging worry that it'll die on me someday. Is it actually useful to upgrade to Outlook 2007 or 2010? (Failed google-fu due to too many web hits, head exploded!)
posted by mono blanco to Computers & Internet (8 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
 
Some newer SaaS apps won't work with Outlook 2003, I was just looking at using a few to send an email newsletter. I think that will only get worse in the future.

Likewise if you every plan on sharing contacts or a calendar with the "cloud" it will probably be difficult for you.
posted by 2bucksplus at 5:41 PM on April 21, 2011


Are you using it to connect to an exchange server?
posted by wcfields at 6:17 PM on April 21, 2011


I love love love Outlook 2010, but I work at Microsoft. :) As wcfields alludes to, if you use it for talking to a SMTP or POP server, there's no reason to upgrade really -- but in concert with Exchange it's really something.

Features I use every day:
  • RSS feeds as "email"
  • Search folders
  • very fast search capability over ~4GB of email (instant, local)
  • the task pane on the left telling me where I need to be next
  • the flagging system telling me what I need to respond to
  • meeting request with a room finder that knows what building I'm in and auto-picks a room that's available at the time I'm scheduling a meeting
I also use rules to categorize and file things, but that's been around for a dog's age.

There's also the Ribbon, which I personally think is the bee's knees, but others detest. Office 2010 in general puts Word into every email I send, so I can include Visio diagrams, WordArt pictures, nicely styled tables, etc into email -- again, for effective business communication, AWESOME.

There's loads of other features that I see used incidently, like the ability to mark a message to a large distribution list as "Do not Forward" or "Do not Reply All" which can also alleviate some common email frustrations.

So, verdict: with Exchange, yes, without Exchange, Microsoft would appreciate your money. :)
posted by Exonym at 7:22 PM on April 21, 2011 [2 favorites]


Best answer: I've found Outlook 2007 to be waay better once the PST file is 3+ gigabytes. But if things are working now, why change? Eventually you'll have to upgrade to Windows 7 and probably at that point it will be easier to upgrade to 2010 or whatever version they are up to.
posted by ChrisHartley at 7:55 PM on April 21, 2011


The search capabilities in 2007 and 2010 are much better and for large mailboxes are worth it alone.
posted by Disco Moo at 10:29 PM on April 21, 2011


Just to say this upfront: my preferences are webmail (Gmail, Yahoo!, etc.) for personal email and Microsoft Outlook for exchange/work email. Your preferences may vary.

That said, my office just switched to Outlook 2010 and I don't work for Microsoft, so here's my perspective:

-The search I've actually found to be kind of clunky (and one of my co-workers, she of the 10,000 emails, finds it to be unusable because it's too slow) but it's still better than 2003

-I like the task pane, too (mainly because the task flagging system is so easy to use) though I often hide it because it takes up valuable real estate

-The calendaring situation is supposed to be pretty awesome (and it's certainly more visually appealing than 2003 and easier to print, too) but we're having some bugs with it interacting on the exchange side of things (so, shared calendars and the like; if you don't have multiple people that you'd be sharing calendars with, no worries)

-Groups can be fairly easy to set up (through the Contacts option) and from what I remember of 2003, that wasn't always the case

-I do like the ribbon (I was a fan of the ribbon in Word 2007, too) but I've found that my less savvy co-workers have a hard time navigating between tabs on the ribbon. So, for example (and I'm not at my desk so this won't be totally accurate) reply emails sometimes default to plain text instead of HTML (meaning you can't use things like bold, italics, etc) and you have to go to a different tab within the email to change back to HTML. This is atrociously difficult to explain to my co-workers. 2010 can be harder to navigate if you're expecting everything to be laid out in front of you, the way 2003 is, and instead things are buried in sub-menus

-I have a Mac, so can't use Internet Explorer to access my work email from home. The Outlook 2010 light version for the web *is* more featured than the 2003 version, but it still chaps my hide that Microsoft disables features for non-Internet Explorer users. If you use IE, this doesn't apply to you

-Overall, it's fairly easy to get into the basics and things like Send New Email essentially remain in the same spot, but the specifics can be a bit daunting to get into if you're not a power user

I agree with the above: if you're not using Outlook for work, then wait until you get a new computer to get 2010 (if you just bought a new one, now would be a great time to switch). You're eventually going to be missing out if you don't switch but plenty of people are just starting to transition.
posted by librarylis at 10:45 AM on April 22, 2011


Disagree with dmt, the ribbon is great if you spend the time and effort getting to learn it. I've changed jobs in the last year and moved from a company running Office 2007 to one using Office 2003 and I'm forced to have to go back to hunting through deeply nested menus to find the options I want. With the ribbon, these are available to me in only a couple of button clicks. It's horrible.

Yes, it's a learning curve - but everyone I've spoken to who hates it has either never used it for very long periods or is hugely technical and entrenched in their ways.

Office 2007 has a number of other nice features (and bug fixes) which make it a good upgrade. The editor now uses Word (and works properly rather than being half-assed in 2003), the calendar view is much more useful (work week view now works properly and is great, the overlaying of calendars is much better, you can subscribe to online calendars and so on and so on). To be fair, the only thing that hasn't had a major upgrade is the notes functionality.

Upgrading from Outlook 2007 to Outlook 2010? Well, not so much of a clear cut decision. The conversation view now shows you the emails you sent within the thread (about time, Gmail has had this for ages) and there are some other niceties but I can't really see a compelling reason to go to it if you're already on 2007.

In short, I'm on 2003 at work and they are promising to move us to Office 2010 some time this year. After well over 6 months of having to put back up with Office 2003, I'm looking forward to getting rid of it and never having to see it again.
posted by mr_silver at 1:31 PM on April 22, 2011


Response by poster: Are you using it to connect to an exchange server?

Thanks all, that's useful. No, POP3 only. Given that, I believe I'll stay with 2003 for now. The Google Desktop search button is a great substitute for 2003's slow search capabilities.
posted by mono blanco at 12:29 AM on April 23, 2011


« Older step on a crack, break your mother's back, etc.   |   Help me help my family Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.