Uggh!

[cassidyrose]

I just got an email here at work notifying us that our PCs will be "upgraded" with MS Office 2000.

Barf.

From my past experience, 2000 is far more buggy than '97. I am unamused. This is not an upgrade, in my view.

Comments

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

2000 was buggy at first, but is a lot better now. Both Casey and I have had reasonable luck with it. But XP ain't going nowhere onto these machines.

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

Are you talking about 2000 office or the OS? We are just upgrading the office package.

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Both. I currently have the 97 office pack, but I've had 2000.

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

XP blows mega chunks and I hope to never use it.

[klwalton.livejournal.com]

My dad has it on his new computer because...well, because it was kind of required because I didn't want to have to put a computer together for him from the box up because if I do that for *anyone* it's gonna be *me*.

Anyway, it seems to be running fine as a preloaded-on-a-virgin-hard-drive OS. I haven't had *too* many desperate phone calls, and the ones I've gotten from him mostly have to do with IE.

All that said, I'd rather eat dirt than load XP on any of my machines.

Actually...

[the-ogre.livejournal.com]

2K is far better that '97. Assuming, of course that you're running it on Win2k.

Otherwise... good luck (says the windoze sysadmin).

Re: Actually...

[cassidyrose.livejournal.com]

Nope...it will be running on NT 4.0. I used it previously on Win 98. I have yet to experience it with W2K.

So, yeah, wish me luck.