| ![Microsoft Office Professional 2003 [OLD VERSION]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MKGY964ML._SL500_.jpg)
| From: Microsoft Software
List Price: $499.99
Buy New: $120.00
You Save: $379.99 (76%)
New (26) Used (7) from $65.00
Rating:  76 reviews
Sales Rank: 16
Format: Cd-rom
Platforms: Windows Xp, Windows 2000
Media: CD-ROM
Edition: Professional
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Number Of Items: 1
Batteries Included: No
Operating System: Windows XP
Shipping Weight (lbs): 3
Dimensions (in): 11.2 x 9.8 x 2
MPN: 269-06738
Model: 269-06738
UPC: 805529627529
EAN: 0805529627529
ASIN: B0000AZJVC
Release Date: October 21, 2003
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 6-10 of 76
Great Product but... January 29, 2006
Jvalant N. Sampat (Princeton, NJ)
36 out of 41 found this review helpful
Microsoft makes the best office suite - period. However, I still do believe that the price is a bit of a rip-off. I have been using Open Office (...) which is developed by Sun Microsystems and is FREE. It is also compatible with MS Office - you can save the files in Word, PowerPoint etc. format. The more I use it, the more I wish I had it during my undergrad days. If money is not your concern - MS Office is definitely the best productivity suite out there. However, if you are a student and wish to make presentations or documents for school/university work I would definitely recommend Open Office as you simply cannot get anything better for free and it shall suit all your needs. I mean at the end of the day - you are graded on your work now how the slides come flying in. But Open has the flying slides too - thought the MS ones still look cooler:) I particularly liked exporting Word Files to PDF format within Open Office. For the record I am not anti-Microsoft - they have some good products - I just wish they would make them more affordable. I hope this helps.
 The latest version January 31, 2005
Joseph Albanese (New York, New York United States)
33 out of 34 found this review helpful
Perhaps I am jaded but again it seems that Microsoft has cranked out another product that looks and acts so much like its predecessor that you wonder at first if you loaded it onto your computer properly.
Office 2003 gives you what you already have in Office XP (and a few earlier versions) so learning how to use it is never going to be a problem. In virtually every way the program looks and feels like the previous Office versions.
There are improvements although I am not sure how much a home user will need the XML functionality. It may be a god-send one day but today it is still not a major factor and certainly does not demand a major update. The RESEARCH option is something to contend with and could be quite useful - it is almost like having Encarta loaded on your machine as well. I found it a bit limiting though; it is good as a thesaurus but there is no world atlas, quotation source, etc. Many people have applauded the new look and feel of Outlook. Again, it behaves just the same as previous versions of Outlook did.
Microsoft chose to retire the Office bar and that is a big mistake. They are trying to push the Quick Launch bar but most businesses and almost all Office users preferred the Office bar.
Don't get me wrong: Office 2003 works very well and with Word, Outlook, Excel, Access and Publisher you can literally do anything! It also preforms very well. But, again, unless Microsoft starts making major changes, these releases should not be heralded as new. If anything, they should be upgrades that former users should be able to download if they registered the original product - the cost is too prohibitive to justify upgrading. And, as your Office 97 or XP works just as well, you should think seriously before spending the money.
 It's been some time since '97... May 3, 2006
Scott Baret (Pittsburgh, PA USA)
33 out of 41 found this review helpful
Office 97 was a pretty good product. The programs were powerful, had a decent interface (maybe not as good as the Claris products of the early 1990s, but not bad), and came with a ton of features all on one disc. The Office 98 release for Mac was pretty much the same thing. The only thing that really got annoying for me was the office assistant (paperclip) but it is easy enough to turn off.
Office 2000 was a bit of a disappointment for me. I felt that the improvements were minimal (aside from a bit more stability in Word--anyone who has ever used Word 97 on a regular basis knows it's prone to crashing) and in fact detracted from the ease of use. One example is the clip gallery, which went from being one of the best organizers ever created to becoming a program that wouldn't have received decent reviews in 1988. Another is PowerPoint's outline feature. I always turned this off because it ate up monitor space and therefore made the actual slide smaller. When you use smaller displays like I often do this is a problem. The menus, which hide some functions until you go to the bottom of them, were also an annoyance. The manual went from being a nice thick book to one half the size.
Office 2003 continues making the program uglier. Now there are many tasks crammed onto one little panel on the right of the screen. Again, this eats into the workspace. The clip art system is even more cumbersome, and many of the clips are online only now. The help feature tries to point too much in the online direction as well. Now some people may not complain, but what if you're using a laptop in the middle of the country?
I feel that the program is basically an uglier version of the same thing that was first seen in 1997. In fact, the 1997 version was more pleasant to work with and almost as powerful. On my Macs, I've switched to Keynote for presentations and Pages for some of my word processing because the new Office versions on that platform are similar.
Some of the templates also look very 1997. Apple's programs are updated on a regular basis, and their templates look very modern. Now I know Microsoft adds some new ones now and then, but they should consider redesigning many of them--such as replacing the overused Arial and Times New Roman fonts with something a little more classy.
The program is bloated way too heavily. I can run Office 2000 comfortably on a 486 with sub-1GB hard drive, but can't even get 2003 on it.
A final gripe is that Access is not user friendly at all. File Maker is a better alternative, as it is easier to use and friendlier.
 A wonderful (but pricey) Microsoft product. November 4, 2003
James Duckett (St. George, Utah)
31 out of 34 found this review helpful
I really like this new version of Microsoft Office. Like previous upgrades, there isn't too much of a difference in Excel and Word other than a few things, it is Outlook which has the largest improvements. I really like the new look as it uses "screen real-estate" much more efficiently. The Junk E-Mail filters are better than in previous editions (much better!) and I had no problems working with my previous PST files. Also, the ability to send busy and free times to people not on Exchange is really nice.However, I do like the changes in Word and Excel, especially as it comes to sharing with other users. It is nice to have control over what is shared and what isn't shared. The improved digital signature is a fantastic benefit as well. And Access. I use Access all the time for my personal databases. I was really concerned that this might be an upgrade like how 2000 was to 97 where you would need to convert everything over and it wouldn't be backwards compatible. Thank goodness everything is backwards compatible. That is a real life saver. The backup feature is excellent as well!! My hats off to Microsoft for another great product!!
Use Open Office - It's Free !!! November 12, 2003
29 out of 44 found this review helpful
If you want an alternative to MS Office, that is also compatible with MS Office, use Open Office. You can find it under the Google search term Open Office. It's a free download, and just as good as Office 2003. You get a Word application, a spreadsheet application, and a PowerPoint application. All are compatible with Office 2003.
|
|
|
