Rating: 
Summary: Not for people on dial-up
Review: I think that this version of Outlook would be perfect if I weren't on dial-up: Outlook seems to be incapable of doing anything relating to your HTTP or IMAP email folders without checking the server, to the point that you can't even access them offline. The fact that Outlook has to check the server almost evrey time you do anything to your email can really be grating on dial-up. Maybe there's a way to stop the constant reference to the server, but I haven't found it.
It also has an annoying habit of locally replacing one of my two Hotmail accounts with the other, necessitating that I remove and recreate the "corrupt" account.
Seeing as how I don't use many of Outlook's other bells and whistles, I can't comment on the broader program, but apart from that signficant headache, it works fairly well.
Rating:
Summary: A bit of a disappointment
Review: I upgraded from Outlook 2000, mainly because of the claimed improvement in spam filtering. I am sorry to say that I did not like the new interface at all. It's overwhelming and crowded. The spam filter options are only slightly different from the previous version. And when I send out an e-mail, Norton Anti-virus takes five times longer to start scanning the message, sometimes resulting in a failed outgoing message. So I went back to Outlook 2000, and of course I'm now stuck with 2003 and can't return it. Maybe I'll try it some other day.
Rating: 
Summary: Outlook 2003
Review: I use Outlook a lot and I have to admit that the new interface is a great step forward. We run an Exchange server here and the functionality is quite seamless. If you're a crusty Outlook user, you may not like some of the changes that the folks from Redmond made, but overall, I think it is a better tool than its predecessor and makes more information simultaneously available.
Rating:
Summary: Big improvement, new folder features are great
Review: I use Outlook for managing tasks, contacts, mail and schedules. The new 2003 version is a vast improvement, at least in look and feel. The folder management is revised to split the window on the left to "favorite folders" and "all folders." Folders are a great way to organize and store emails, so this is a welcome change. Then, the mail is organized by "today", "yesterday", and then the days of the week and back weeks. This helps to organize and trim out the inbox, which can get cluttered. For this attractive new feature alone, it's worth upgrading. The look of the user interface is consistent with Windows XP, with the snazzy shaded bars. Nice to work with. Other improvements --the calendar also has been expanded, and tasks and contacts have new features, too. For example, the mail reading pane is larger, less scrolling required (yay!) and you can organize messages by subject thread to delete an entire series. Pretty cool. If you are a dedicated Outlook user, the upgrade is well worth it, in my opinion.
Rating: 
Summary: Outlook 2003
Review: Limited integration of standalone Outlook 2003 with word or office 2000.
*The following from Microsoft Outlook 2003 deployment site:
"If users upgrade to Outlook 2003 before upgrading to other Office applications, they will not be able to use Microsoft WordMail as their e-mail editor. The version of Microsoft Word must match the version of Outlook in order for WordMail to be available as the editor in Outlook."
Rating:
Summary: Outlook 2003
Review: Limited integration of standalone Outlook 2003 with word or office 2000.
*The following from Microsoft Outlook 2003 deployment site:
"If users upgrade to Outlook 2003 before upgrading to other Office applications, they will not be able to use Microsoft WordMail as their e-mail editor. The version of Microsoft Word must match the version of Outlook in order for WordMail to be available as the editor in Outlook."
Rating:
Summary: Works Great
Review: New interface and features are nice. I use OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office, so a can't comment on the Microsoft Office integration. Didn't notice any "AdWare" as stated by another reviewer. I upgraded from Outlook 2000 and it went flawlessly. Found all my Rules, customized folders and Accounts without any setup. Until the Open Source community provides an alternative on a Microsoft platform, I'll continue to use Microsoft Outlook. For $90.00, you can't beat it. Thanks for a great product Microsoft.
Rating:
Summary: Works Great
Review: New interface and features are nice. I use OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office, so a can't comment on the Microsoft Office integration. Didn't notice and "AdWare" as stated by another reviewer. I upgraded from Outlook 2000 and it went flawlessly. Found all my Rules, customized folders and Accounts without any setup. Until the Open Source community provides an alternative on a Microsoft platform, I'll continue to use Microsoft Outlook. For $90.00, you can't beat it. Thanks for a great product Microsoft.
Rating:
Summary: Crippleware, Adware, all at no additional charge
Review: Outlook 2003 is certainly prettier than past versions, but I find the interface cluttered and harder to use. For example, in Outlook 2000 you could enter a Contact's nickname in the 'To' line, but this doesn't work with this 'upgrade'. Also annoying is the Microsoft Online billboard that appears to the right of the screen, masquerading as a help bar. It does include help functionality, but it also includes 'push' topics that tout Microsoft's other products. My biggest gripe is that Outlook 2003 added a new nanny feature that prevent users from receiving email attachments with dozens of extensions, including Access and Foxpro database files. If you're using Outlook in standalone mode, you can't override this setting. You can't save the file. You can't forward it. You're just out of luck. Also, if another user tries to email you a link to a website (using the 'send as link' function in IE), Outlook blocks the resulting .url file. Of course there are clunky workarounds for all these deficiencies, assuming you can cajole the sender into putting up with the hassle of jumping through hoops made necessary by your new mail client. Security is important, but crippling your software rather than designing it correctly in the first place sounds more like a shareware workaround than the latest product of a $270 billion company. I got Office 2003 on my new PC, but if I could, I would go back to Outlook 2000 in a heartbeat. If you're thinking of upgrading, don't!
Rating:
Summary: Crippleware, Adware, all at no additional charge
Review: Outlook 2003 is certainly prettier than past versions, but I find the interface cluttered and harder to use. For example, in Outlook 2000 you could enter a Contact's nickname in the 'To' line, but this doesn't work with this 'upgrade'. Also annoying is the Microsoft Online billboard that appears to the right of the screen, masquerading as a help bar. It does include help functionality, but it also includes 'push' topics that tout Microsoft's other products. My biggest gripe is that Outlook 2003 added a new nanny feature that prevent users from receiving email attachments with dozens of extensions, including Access and Foxpro database files. If you're using Outlook in standalone mode, you can't override this setting. You can't save the file. You can't forward it. You're just out of luck. Also, if another user tries to email you a link to a website (using the 'send as link' function in IE), Outlook blocks the resulting .url file. Of course there are clunky workarounds for all these deficiencies, assuming you can cajole the sender into putting up with the hassle of jumping through hoops made necessary by your new mail client. Security is important, but crippling your software rather than designing it correctly in the first place sounds more like a shareware workaround than the latest product of a $270 billion company. I got Office 2003 on my new PC, but if I could, I would go back to Outlook 2000 in a heartbeat. If you're thinking of upgrading, don't!
| 
