Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 6/14/2009 8:18:17 AM EST
Don't play well together. Apparently, Outlook XP is not supported by Vista/Windows 7. It works fine, but Outlook won't remember the passwords. Microsoft has also officially announced that they have no plans to make Office XP compatible. There are some aftermarket programs that will manually enter your passwords for you. I ended up just grunting and buying a copy of Outlook 2007. Consider this a PSA/Venting Opportunity.

Thanks!
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 9:41:20 AM EST
You are so much better off with office 2007. I never liked Office XP/2002.

Outlook 2007 is light years of XP and is considerably improved over 2003.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 9:56:48 AM EST
I've got it on my work laptop, and I got one home use copy of Office 2007 Ultimate license through work. I do like the new ribbon layout for Word, but Outlook is not much changed.

Also, I have four laptops and two desktops. I purchased a copy of Office 2007 Home & Student, which has three licenses, but lacks Outlook. I have an Office XP educational license copy from my university days, so I figured I'd install Outlook 2003 on the three H&S licenses. Turns out I'll have to shell out another $240 for three more Outlook 2007 licenses when the time comes to upgrade to Windows 7.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 11:00:38 AM EST
Office/Outlook XP is eight years old and designed to be compatible with version of Windows back to Windows 95.


Why do you need a copy of Outlook on every computer?
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 12:27:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Office/Outlook XP is eight years old and designed to be compatible with version of Windows back to Windows 95.


Why do you need a copy of Outlook on every computer?


Because it is my preferred way of managing my email. I spent 280 out of 365 days last year deployed to natural disasters both foreign & domestic. I travel with two work laptops and one personal laptop, and I am the single point of tech support for my wife when I am home and abroad. So I like things to be consistent.

And sure, I am aware things change. However, the changes between Outlook XP & Outlook 2007 consist of a minor facelift and the abandonment of the protected storage interface, wherein Outlook XP stores it's passwords. In point of fact, as far as I can tell between my Outlook XP machine and my Outlook 2007 machines, there are no other issues or changes of function then the failure to access stored passwords. So it would seem that support for this product was abandoned to force an upgrade. I am aware of the realities of the business world, but that does not mean I have to like them.

Link Posted: 6/14/2009 12:57:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By JohnnyEgo:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Office/Outlook XP is eight years old and designed to be compatible with version of Windows back to Windows 95.


Why do you need a copy of Outlook on every computer?


Because it is my preferred way of managing my email. I spent 280 out of 365 days last year deployed to natural disasters both foreign & domestic. I travel with two work laptops and one personal laptop, and I am the single point of tech support for my wife when I am home and abroad. So I like things to be consistent.

And sure, I am aware things change. However, the changes between Outlook XP & Outlook 2007 consist of a minor facelift and the abandonment of the protected storage interface, wherein Outlook XP stores it's passwords. In point of fact, as far as I can tell between my Outlook XP machine and my Outlook 2007 machines, there are no other issues or changes of function then the failure to access stored passwords. So it would seem that support for this product was abandoned to force an upgrade. I am aware of the realities of the business world, but that does not mean I have to like them.



Wow

Obsessive compulsive does not equal consistent. Using six computers to manage e-mail is not management it is herding cats.

Support for this product was abandoned because it is in its ninth year, it is not reasonable to expect software that was designed a decade ago to be supported in a new OS.

The differences run far far deeper than a facelift. If you think the changes are minor or there are no major changes of function between Outlook 2007 and Outlook XP you are not paying attention or are not using the features of either product in a manner that justifies owning either.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 1:45:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Originally Posted By JohnnyEgo:
Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
Office/Outlook XP is eight years old and designed to be compatible with version of Windows back to Windows 95.


Why do you need a copy of Outlook on every computer?


Because it is my preferred way of managing my email. I spent 280 out of 365 days last year deployed to natural disasters both foreign & domestic. I travel with two work laptops and one personal laptop, and I am the single point of tech support for my wife when I am home and abroad. So I like things to be consistent.

And sure, I am aware things change. However, the changes between Outlook XP & Outlook 2007 consist of a minor facelift and the abandonment of the protected storage interface, wherein Outlook XP stores it's passwords. In point of fact, as far as I can tell between my Outlook XP machine and my Outlook 2007 machines, there are no other issues or changes of function then the failure to access stored passwords. So it would seem that support for this product was abandoned to force an upgrade. I am aware of the realities of the business world, but that does not mean I have to like them.



Wow

Obsessive compulsive does not equal consistent. Using six computers to manage e-mail is not management it is herding cats.

Support for this product was abandoned because it is in its ninth year, it is not reasonable to expect software that was designed a decade ago to be supported in a new OS.

The differences run far far deeper than a facelift. If you think the changes are minor or there are no major changes of function between Outlook 2007 and Outlook XP you are not paying attention or are not using the features of either product in a manner that justifies owning either.


Using six computers to manage email is the cost of my life and employment choices, and is entirely my own preference. I am also afflicted with a Blackberry, so I suppose that gives me seven opportunities to herd cats. But regardless, it is my choice to do so.

I use Office 2007 extensively, as I have to prepare professional reports and do the typical office work of any mid level manager. I expect the software to serve my needs. Not that credentials make much of a difference on here, but I am an electrical engineer and I also have a degree in computer science, so I am not a dolt nor am I computer illiterate. I understand quite well the nature of product life cycles and business in general.

Tone does not convey well via the written word. So there is a possibility that I am reading more into yours then you intended. There is an equal possibility that you were not aware of your tone, either. If you want to engage me in thoughtful conversation, I'd be glad to continue a dialog with you. If you'd rather stick to casting aspersions, then I will disregard any further wit and wisdom you'd care to provide.

Link Posted: 6/14/2009 1:57:56 PM EST
Originally Posted By JohnnyEgo:
Using six computers to manage email is the cost of my life and employment choices, and is entirely my own preference. I am also afflicted with a Blackberry, so I suppose that gives me seven opportunities to herd cats. But regardless, it is my choice to do so.

I use Office 2007 extensively, as I have to prepare professional reports and do the typical office work of any mid level manager. I expect the software to serve my needs. Not that credentials make much of a difference on here, but I am an electrical engineer and I also have a degree in computer science, so I am not a dolt nor am I computer illiterate. I understand quite well the nature of product life cycles and business in general.

Tone does not convey well via the written word. So there is a possibility that I am reading more into yours then you intended. There is an equal possibility that you were not aware of your tone, either. If you want to engage me in thoughtful conversation, I'd be glad to continue a dialog with you. If you'd rather stick to casting aspersions, then I will disregard any further wit and wisdom you'd care to provide.



My tone was what it was… Again..

If you think the changes between those products that were designed years apart and when there were aspects of the internet that did not even exists when Office XP was designed are minor or that there are no major changes of function between Outlook 2007 and Outlook XP you are not paying attention or are not using the features of either product in a manner that justifies owning either.

There are massive differences between the two products and that is apparent to anyone using fraction of the functions of either/both product.

You said it yourself what you are doing is a matter of preference not need. I understand you prefer X and that you are a creature of habit, fine many people are but your preferences are no reason to cripple the future for everyone else.

If you wish to be offended by a factual statement not intended to offend that is your choice.
Link Posted: 6/14/2009 6:14:02 PM EST
Fair enough. I'll assume your tone is neutral, and I hope you will do the same with mine.

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
<snip>
If you think the changes between those products that were designed years apart and when there were aspects of the internet that did not even exists when Office XP was designed are minor or that there are no major changes of function between Outlook 2007 and Outlook XP you are not paying attention or are not using the features of either product in a manner that justifies owning either.


First, let me assure you that I recognize that Office 2007 as a whole is substantially improved over Office 2000 / Office XP. So I'd like to focus discussion specifically to the two different versions of Outlook.

My question to you is this: At what level of use have I 'justified' owning either product?

Am I justified because I am required to use the software as a component of my employment, regardless of my own preference?
Am I justified because I purchase and use the software as my purposes see fit?
Should I be required to conform to the demands of the software, or should it be required to comply with mine?

Let's set the compatibility issue aside for a moment. I have a number of options for the continued use of Outlook XP, including running the entire XP OS via dual boot or a virtual machine from within Vista/Windows 7. I could also use an aftermarket script to just fill in the password on Outlook XP, and have all the function I need.

You are correct that I do not perceive the significant advantages between the Outlook upgrades. The other applications of Office 2007 have received a substantial makeover. I like the ribbon interface and the improvement in usability that it provides. However, Outlook doesn't make very much use of the ribbon, particularly on the main user interface. I see where NetMeeting is no longer supported under Outlook 2007, and while that sucks for me, I am sure LiveMeeting will work just fine. However, as far as I can tell specific to Outlook, I fail to see the major differences that are apparent in other Office applications.

So I would welcome an education. What makes Outlook 2007 a substantial improvement over Outlook XP? And what do I have to do that 'justifies' my ownership of both products?

Link Posted: 6/15/2009 6:17:35 AM EST
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
You are so much better off with office 2007. I never liked Office XP/2002.

Outlook 2007 is light years of XP and is considerably improved over 2003
.


That is an opinion. 2k3 just worked, 2007 has given me nothing but headaches on RPC over HTTP... Worse after we moved to exchange 2007....
The Ribbon in Outlook is a waste of space (Great addition to Excel) and I see no new functionality. For the casual user 2007 is pretty much 2003 with a ribbon.

Then you try to make this buggy mail client work with a buggy OS (Vista).. better buy a case of Advil!

my 2C, let the flaming begin!
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 8:23:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/15/2009 8:24:23 AM EST by thedave1164]
Originally Posted By Kit_Karson:
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
You are so much better off with office 2007. I never liked Office XP/2002.

Outlook 2007 is light years of XP and is considerably improved over 2003
.


That is an opinion. 2k3 just worked, 2007 has given me nothing but headaches on RPC over HTTP... Worse after we moved to exchange 2007....
The Ribbon in Outlook is a waste of space (Great addition to Excel) and I see no new functionality. For the casual user 2007 is pretty much 2003 with a ribbon.

Then you try to make this buggy mail client work with a buggy OS (Vista).. better buy a case of Advil!

my 2C, let the flaming begin!


A couple of things:

There is a difference between Outlook XP and Outlook 2003.

I question your review of Outlook 2007 as there is NO RIBBON.

Having extensively used Outlook since it was introduced, 2007 is the best yet.

Not sure on Outlook 2010 though, it will have the Ribbon.....

Exchange 2007 is a great update from Exchange 2003, most that complain due to the doing away with the public folders, which were stored in a mailstore like DB, bad juju.


If I had my way, MS would do away with their various DB engines and settle on the SQL.

Mailstores, .pst and Access db's just suck.

And that is my 2 cents.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 8:40:54 AM EST
The Ribbon I speak of is on top of a new message...

The biggest gripe i have is RPC/HTTP... it just works much better under XP/2k3 (or even 2007 SP0)
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 10:08:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/15/2009 10:10:44 AM EST by JohnnyEgo]
The ribbon in Outlook 2007 makes it's appearance in limited places, like new appointments and meeting requests. Otherwise, most of the interface is unchanged from prior versions.
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 10:46:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/15/2009 10:52:06 AM EST by TinLeg]

Originally Posted By Kit_Karson:
Originally Posted By thedave1164:
You are so much better off with office 2007. I never liked Office XP/2002.

Outlook 2007 is light years of XP and is considerably improved over 2003
.


That is an opinion. 2k3 just worked, 2007 has given me nothing but headaches on RPC over HTTP... Worse after we moved to exchange 2007....
The Ribbon in Outlook is a waste of space (Great addition to Excel) and I see no new functionality. For the casual user 2007 is pretty much 2003 with a ribbon.

Then you try to make this buggy mail client work with a buggy OS (Vista).. better buy a case of Advil!

my 2C, let the flaming begin!


Hmm....


Office 2007 deployed with a properly set up Exchange 2007 shouldn't be any problem at all.


We don't even bother to script the username in to Outlook any more. Upon first run, the user answers the one (username) question it asks and Outlook does the rest.


From that point forward it's all set up. Including RPC over HTTP (Outlook Anywhere.)


I suspect your IT folks are trying to fit a square peg (Exchange 2007) in a round hole (Exchange 2003 configuration.)
Link Posted: 6/15/2009 3:42:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By Kit_Karson:
The Ribbon I speak of is on top of a new message...

The biggest gripe i have is RPC/HTTP... it just works much better under XP/2k3 (or even 2007 SP0)


Gotcha, I forgot about its appearance there.

Wait until 2010, it will have the ribbon on top of the app just like word/excel.

Top Top