Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

What makes Office 2003 better than 97?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1
pointertovoid

pointertovoid

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Joined 16-January 09
Hello everybody!

Used Office 97 Pro up to now, saw no clear reason to change. And then I used a really affordable opportunity to buy a used Office 2003 Pro.

Installed on my St3500418as+E8600+P45+ich10r, it is very fast, that's an excellent surprise. 1/3s to open Word after reboot. Though I didn't try on my PIIIs nor my P1mmx... But the very first hurdle is passed brilliantly.

Now, having tried o2003 briefly (still haven't activated it), I haven't seen real decisive advantages over o97... Do you see some? I mean, better functions for the user. Not compatibilities and file formats, I don't care.

- Dictionaries and spelling correction in several languages, that's nice. But I miss one language, and there's no significant grammar capability.
- User Interface is in one language only, isn't it? Putting more would need an additional GUI, which costs more and seems impossible to obtain for o2003.
- It still gets security patches, but this won't last for o2003 neither, and I don't care anyway.
- Some bugs are improved, like column and page width interactions in Word.
- Diagrams are still as complicated and unnatural in Excel. Formatting in Excel, as well.
- Can the Equation Editor still be used alone? I didn't find it.
- Write-protected individual cells in Excel, may be useful from time to time.

Please refrain from answering "Open Office", I know it already, thanks.


How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
pointertovoid

pointertovoid

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Joined 16-January 09
Right, o2003 can get its updates slipstreamed properly. That's an advantage.
o97 is touchy with its updates, can't officially be slipstreamed and needs updates to be applied again if you change optional components. You may even need to de-install some updates before.

Still not a decisive advantage to my eyes, knowing the price of o2003, but it is an advantage indeed.

#3
PC_LOAD_LETTER

PC_LOAD_LETTER

    Well, I stole something else

  • Super Moderator
  • 1,829 posts
  • Joined 13-October 07
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
<stupid>
um its like 6 better and i can prove it with math-e-matiks:
2003 - 1997 = 6
or is it 1906 better?
2003 - 97 = 1906

eye-ther way its definaitly betterer than 97!

but by that 'logic' Windows 7 is only better than Windows 3.11 :wacko:
</stupid>

but seriously, id use at least 2003 even if only cause the icons looks slightly better than 97-2002. other than that there arent really any groundbreaking feature differences I can recall.

#4
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
PROS: Size occupied on hard disk? :unsure:
http://www.oooninja....ice-moores.html
:w00t:
(you have less space to store games and p0rn that may distract you from actually working) ;)

CONS: Everything else.

Make a test drive of Spread32 and Atlantis:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=8898

then come back to me and tell me that I am completely wrong when I say that a very large part of Office is perfectly unneeded. :whistle:

Back to real topic, the 2000 version is in my view the one that has already everything that is needed (very few minor things when compared to 97) 2002 (XP) is a buggy version of 2000, 2003 is simply the same as 2000 with more bells and whistles, I WON'T comment 2007. :realmad:

jaclaz

#5
AndrewNi

AndrewNi

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 15 posts
  • Joined 20-November 05
In Office 2000 and above you get a taskbar entry for each opened document, in Office 97 you have to use the Window menu to switch. (I assume that has something to do with 97's NT 3.51 compatibility.)

#6
beats

beats

    Free cookies

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Joined 08-November 07
The main advantage over Office 97 is that Office 2003 is supported still, until 2014. And GUI-wise it looks a bit better. ;)

But to be fair, Office 95 already offered more than the average user would ever use (or need).
Building switchless installers and addons upon request for registered RyanVM.net and WinCert members.

#7
GrofLuigi

GrofLuigi

    GroupPolicy Tattoo Artist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Joined 21-April 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
From what I remember from working with different Office versions, each "generation" brought one-two distinct features I remembered them by (and not a slight bit useful for me, and I suspect for 99% of office users). Note: this is very subjective and inaccurate, but it's coming from a user that used them in many different situations, environments and tasks (and often repaired them).

If we say 97 is 'the base' which already covers most of the capabilities needed, then subsequent versions brought:

2000 - it was a long time ago and I used it for very short time, so I forgot what was its main feature - windows installer? programmed installation?

2002 - in this they somehow broke unicode support. For one specific job I'm using it, this version is highly dis-recommended. :)

2003 - Smart tags? Beginning of sharepoint, DRM, online activation.

2007 - the button, contextual spell check, unslipstreamability

Of course, there is a non-stop stream of small fixes and updates, but I see a problem with that:

1. Why didn't they get it right in the first place? The money they took were not buggy. :)
2. Together with the fixes, enormous bloat is pushed. Including complete unnecessary apps.

I'd say they closely match the Windows version from the year they are published. That can't be coincidence.

GL

Edited by GrofLuigi, 24 September 2009 - 05:43 PM.


#8
pointertovoid

pointertovoid

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Joined 16-January 09
I've installed Office 2003 recently, and:
- I does bring some grammar checking in several languages, including limited German declension, I appreciate;
- On an X25-E SSD and a 3.3GHz Core 2 duo running W2k with Ahci, o2003 starts almost instantly (o97 really is instantaneous).
On a 7k160 and PIIIs 1.4GHz, o2003 takes 1s while o97 takes zero.

#9
Phenomic

Phenomic

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Joined 31-July 09
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I've installed Office 2003 recently, and:
- I does bring some grammar checking in several languages, including limited German declension, I appreciate;
- On an X25-E SSD and a 3.3GHz Core 2 duo running W2k with Ahci, o2003 starts almost instantly (o97 really is instantaneous).
On a 7k160 and PIIIs 1.4GHz, o2003 takes 1s while o97 takes zero.


I have grammar/spellcheck for 3 European langueages in Word 97, it wasn't included though I had to downlaod them. Do you know why o97 doesn't install in Windows 7?

#10
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Do you know why o97 doesn't install in Windows 7?

It feels intimidated by the size of the OS install? :unsure:

It is most probably some "supporting DLL" and/or Registry setting (and filesystem pemissions) that has changed, it should be possible with some tweak/tricks, but it seems to me like it is an "isolated" problem you are having, there are several reports of success in installing, BUT the issue you should be aware is this:
http://news.softpedi...ge-130365.shtml
If I were you I would try in a "fresh" Windows 7 VM, first.
The issues with installing seem to come with the SR's:
http://www.win7heads...indows-7-a.html

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz, 08 October 2012 - 01:33 PM.


#11
GrofLuigi

GrofLuigi

    GroupPolicy Tattoo Artist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,360 posts
  • Joined 21-April 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
What if I told you I successfully transplanted spellchecking dlls for my language from O2010 into O2003? :ph34r:

But it probably won't work for most languages, mine is weakly supported (only through LIP - Language interface pack) and two dlls which only needed to be renamed and overwritten. The interesting thing was, the dlls had different company names in their version resource (both not Microsoft) and they work flawlessly after replacement. I checked with Dependency Walker, they had the same exports (or whatever the function names are called). But it's only simple spellcheck, and bad for that matter - many words missing or wrong for my language. That's the way it has always been with my language. :(

GL

Edited by GrofLuigi, 08 October 2012 - 03:10 PM.


#12
Octopuss

Octopuss

    I am the walrus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Joined 31-January 07
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

The whole Office thing is funny and pathetic both at the same time.

What cracked me up the most was comparing installation of 2003 and 2010. I always install just Word and Excel with the smallest amount of components possible. Checking the very same components, Office 2003 comes up at like 100MB or so, while 2010 eats 700MB. lol

Of course, the startup time is a joke as well.



#13
Sp0iLedBrAt

Sp0iLedBrAt

    MSFN Addict

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 1,727 posts
  • Joined 19-March 09
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

- Can the Equation Editor still be used alone? I didn't find it.


It's there when you choose Custom Install for the first time. If you've already installed it, use Add/Remove Programs to modify the installation and change from "Installed on first use" to "This feature will be available on the hard drive". Then it's a matter of adding the icon to any of the toolbars through Customize -> Commands.

Cheers

#14
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

What cracked me up the most was comparing installation of 2003 and 2010. I always install just Word and Excel with the smallest amount of components possible. Checking the very same components, Office 2003 comes up at like 100MB or so, while 2010 eats 700MB. lol

Guess what graph is here ?("full" installs, which are a FATTER joke :lol: )
http://www.oooninja....ice-moores.html

jaclaz

#15
Octopuss

Octopuss

    I am the walrus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Joined 31-January 07
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

At this rate of growth, Microsoft Office Standard 2013 will be 5000MB, and the Microsoft Office Premium Platinum Plus 2013 edition (a larger edition than the Standard edition) will come on a set of Blu-ray discs.


LOL!!! I am glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read it! Hahaha!



#16
Phenomic

Phenomic

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Joined 31-July 09
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag


Do you know why o97 doesn't install in Windows 7?

It feels intimidated by the size of the OS install? :unsure:

It is most probably some "supporting DLL" and/or Registry setting (and filesystem pemissions) that has changed, it should be possible with some tweak/tricks, but it seems to me like it is an "isolated" problem you are having, there are several reports of success in installing, BUT the issue you should be aware is this:
http://news.softpedi...ge-130365.shtml
If I were you I would try in a "fresh" Windows 7 VM, first.
The issues with installing seem to come with the SR's:
http://www.win7heads...indows-7-a.html

jaclaz



Thank you. I ran into this when I was installing Windows 2000 on a flash drive. The answer was to copy the install CD to the OS partition and installing from there.

I have old VBA scripts that I use for financial applications, and I really don't want to buy a new version of MS office and rewrite the all the VB code (because I only use it once a month). It's much simpler to run Win2k in VM.

#17
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Thank you. I ran into this when I was installing Windows 2000 on a flash drive. The answer was to copy the install CD to the OS partition and installing from there.

I have old VBA scripts that I use for financial applications, and I really don't want to buy a new version of MS office and rewrite the all the VB code (because I only use it once a month). It's much simpler to run Win2k in VM.

I am completely failing to see :unsure: what has in common "installing Windows 2000 on a CF card" with "installing Office 97 on a WIndows 7 OS" :w00t: :ph34r:

jaclaz

#18
Phenomic

Phenomic

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Joined 31-July 09
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag


Thank you. I ran into this when I was installing Windows 2000 on a flash drive. The answer was to copy the install CD to the OS partition and installing from there.

I have old VBA scripts that I use for financial applications, and I really don't want to buy a new version of MS office and rewrite the all the VB code (because I only use it once a month). It's much simpler to run Win2k in VM.

I am completely failing to see :unsure: what has in common "installing Windows 2000 on a CF card" with "installing Office 97 on a WIndows 7 OS" :w00t: :ph34r:

jaclaz


You'll see if you read the post. I was installing Microsoft office 97 in win2k on CF card.

#19
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,419 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

You'll see if you read the post. I was installing Microsoft office 97 in win2k on CF card.

I have read the post. :yes:
See if you can spot any difference between :angel :
  • Office 97 installing on Windows 7 failing.
  • Office 97 installing on Windows 2000 on a CF card seen as removable failing

jaclaz

#20
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
I still prefer Microsoft Office 2003. It is much more contemporary looking the Office 97. But it still adheres to the rest of your desktop appearance. Office 2007 and 2010 use their own skinning and you can't change appearance as easily, or as consistently (kinda like Google chrome; another offender in this area)

#21
Simeon

Simeon
  • Member
  • 5 posts
  • Joined 03-March 13
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I have grammar/spellcheck for 3 European langueages in Word 97, it wasn't included though I had to downlaod them. Do you know why o97 doesn't install in Windows 7?


Strangle I have just managed to install Office 97 on Windows 8 (im surprised to say the least!) although it asked me if I wanted to enable 16-bit program execution. :)

#22
Asp

Asp

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Joined 17-April 05
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

I've installed Office 2003 recently, and:
- I does bring some grammar checking in several languages, including limited German declension, I appreciate;
- On an X25-E SSD and a 3.3GHz Core 2 duo running W2k with Ahci, o2003 starts almost instantly (o97 really is instantaneous).
On a 7k160 and PIIIs 1.4GHz, o2003 takes 1s while o97 takes zero.



Office by default installs a quickstart process -- which means that when you boot Windows, you also start Office. Which slows down your Windows boot of course.

So then it can open a file "instantly" because it's already in memory and chewing up cycles waiting for you to call it.

If you're using Office frequently then you might be happy with this; if you only use it once a week, less so.

Other juggernauts also use this method to make them appear more nimble, like many Adobe programs.

Just be aware of this and choose which you allow to run.
I deactivated all the quickstart processes using a startup manager.

Edited by Asp, 09 June 2013 - 08:48 AM.


#23
pointertovoid

pointertovoid

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Joined 16-January 09
Needless to say that no application is allowed to load when my machine boots up.
And guess what, Adobe is not present on my machines, for that sort of reasons.
The start time I give for varied Office are without the loader at boot, and after a fresh boot, of course.

#24
almawardi

almawardi

    Good Old Software Lover

  • Member
  • 21 posts
  • Joined 02-May 05
  • OS:2003 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

http://www.msfn.org/...dalone-word-97/



#25
JodyT

JodyT

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 238 posts
  • Joined 05-April 11
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I wonder if there is any way to force security updates on Outlook 2003 past April 2014.  I love this particular version of Outlook.  And as for Office, I am EXTREMELY ANTI-RIBBON, so I do not wish to move to Office 2007.  Kingsoft Office seems promising, but I am not 100% sure.

 

How bad of shape would I be in continuing to use Office 2003 on Vista x64 SP2 Ultimate after April 2014 (with and without Outlook 2003)?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN