"Char Jackson" <none@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:dnr13693v9pe4e5mgti5nv9jjanh9b1nte@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 12:52:06 -0700, Ken Blake
> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:42:50 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:43:19 -0700, Ken Blake
>>> <kblake@this.is.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:29:02 -0700, XS11E <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> You might mention that Outlook 2003 or 2007 will also run under
>>> >> Windows
>>> >> 7
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I did, earlier in the thread.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> and should cost less....
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Sure, they are obsolescent versions and such non-current versions
>>> >always cost less.
>>>
>>> Non-current, yes, but obsolescent, not so much.
>>
>>
>>They mean very close to the same things here.
>
> Ok, but over here they couldn't be more different.
>
> I use Office 2003 at home and 2007 at work. The primary differences
> are cosmetic. I also recently took a product tour of Office 2010, and
> again, the primary differences were cosmetic. The apps I use most are
> Outlook, Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, with a bit of Access now and
> then. I switch back and forth between Office versions and so far I
> have not noticed a needed feature that was missing on the older
> version. Obsolescent? Not at all.
>
I started using Office 2010 when it came out in Beta and found the most
substantial change was better able to handle graphics, use graphics in PPT
and etc. (Probably a good analogy would be more bells and whistles graphics
wise.) But, like you said most differences are cosmetic and a different
layout of commands, most of which are good and a few that make no sense. (As
I remember when switching from 03 to 07 I saw pretty much the same thing.)
Dave