Outlook 2000 vs. Outlook 2003

[chuck2002]

I'm running a network of about 80 computers. Our office productivity package is Office 2k along with Outlook 2k connected to an Exchange 2k server.

The boss wants us to look into upgrading Outlook (she was specifically asking about Outlook only) installation to 2003 because 2000 is 4 years old. I can't find any real compelling reason to make the upgrade and have found a few discussions about bugs in the newest version.
Any thoughts from the trenches? I say if it aint broke don't fix it, but the boss says that is a bad attitude to have and that it snubbs innovation.
I doubt we will do the upgrade based on my feelings now, but that depends on some of the feedback this post gets, maybe there is something glaring I am overlooking.

Other details: This is for a University installation, so it will be cheap.

 

[BDawg]

I love how new messages pop up in outlook 2003.

 

[AlsoNadrag]

I upgraded from Outlook 2000 to Mozilla Thunderbird - for free.

 

[MrChad]

2003 has better Junk Mail Filtering built-in, and it should be able to handle large PST files more reliably than 2000. Will you be upgrading your Exchange Server to 2003 as well?

 

[chuck2002]

We are using Messagelabs for SPAM and virii filtering, so we are not needing that particular feature of 2k3....
I will look more into the larger pst file issue, as we have some rather large mailboxes and users who hate to delete.
There is no plan to move to Exchange 2003 in the forseeable future, although I have heard good things about it. We are happy with Exchange 2000 for now.

I also use Thunderbird for home emailing, but that is not an option in this office where the added Outlook and Exchange features are very desirable.

Thanks for the feedback and keep 'em coming.

 

[Sunner]

I definitely prefer 2000 to 2003, I've yet to find any improvement whatsoever in 2003 over 2000.
The spamfilter is a joke, Spambayes is by far superior IMO.
Someone mentioned handling of PST files, my Outlook handles a ~1.5 GB PST file just fine.

Why not just ask her specifically what she wants with 2003?

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: Sunner
I definitely prefer 2000 to 2003, I've yet to find any improvement whatsoever in 2003 over 2000.
The spamfilter is a joke, Spambayes is by far superior IMO.
Someone mentioned handling of PST files, my Outlook handles a ~1.5 GB PST file just fine.

Why not just ask her specifically what she wants with 2003?

I can't say I've used Outlook 2003 yet, but I agree with this poster in regards to spam filtering. Works like a charm with my Outlook 2000.

 

[chuck2002]

A user requested 2k3 to be able to administer multiple calendars more easilly.
The boss got wind of that and suggested we all move to 2k3. I resisted somewhat telling her that we are happy and stable with 2k and that the differences between the two versions were minor.
So now I need to substantiate my claim or prepare for the upgrade....

 

[Czar]

the improvements I have seen have mostly to do with the gui, its much easier to view messages and sort them now than before

also if you are looking into running a sharepoint server then its a must to have 2003 I think.... I have started to look into running sharepoint here, just still havent seen the point

 

[yoda291]

also remember, upgrading to o2k3 is very much tied to your hardware upgrade cycle as well. I find it's considerably more demanding on the system than o2k was. You may find your helpdesk mired in calls about slowness of email. There really isn't a whole lot in terms of improvement for outlook when it comes to 2003. Really, I would suggest that you look for a 3rd party plugin or application that allows you to do what you want with outlook 2k than doing what could become a rather expensive deployment.