This is a joke, right?

[Paul]

I just purchased Outlook 2003 and I have Word 2002 installed. When I try to
set Word as my e-mail editor, I get the message, "You must be running the
current version of Microsft Word in order to use this feature". This has to
be a joke, right?? C'mon Microsoft. What a rip off.....trying to get
people to needlessly upgrade or purchase a newer version of Word is a huge
scam.

 

[Vanguardx]

I just purchased Outlook 2003 and I have Word 2002 installed. When I
try to set Word as my e-mail editor, I get the message, "You must be
running the current version of Microsft Word in order to use this
feature". This has to be a joke, right?? C'mon Microsoft. What a
rip off.....trying to get people to needlessly upgrade or purchase a
newer version of Word is a huge scam.

No, the versions of Outlook and Word must match. Otherwise, there may
be features or functions in one product that are supported or understood
by the other product. Integration works if the components know how to
communicate with each other. For now, you'll have to just use the
embedded new-mail compose editor included in Outlook 2003 (until you
later decide to get Word 2003). This is not a new problem related to
Outlook 2003. As long as I can remember (since Outlook has offered the
option to use Word as its editor), the requirement has been that the
versions of Outlook and Word must match. For accuracy, the error
message should say, "You must be running SAME version of Microsoft Word
as Microsoft Outlook in order to use this feature."

 

[Lewis Shanks]

Paul:
I experienced the same thing and was furious to learn that Outlook 2003 was
actually giving me fewer features than Outlook 2000 still being used in
other computers. After paying Outlook for a service call, they finally
figured out the answer that you received, that you must also purchase Word
2003 in order for all of the Outlook 2003 features to work, including those
that Outlook 2000 already offered me. To say the least, I could not agree
with you more and only upgraded Word to get the spam filter features that I
ultimately learned I could handle better with other software. It was a total
waste of over $200!

Lewis Shanks

 

[BillR [MVP]]

Without Word as the editor you still get many more features with Outlook
2003 than with Outlook 2000. Any additional features that you might see
would be supplied by Word. An exception is that Outlook 2000 supports IMO
mode which is a little faster (but not much) with POP3 accounts than Outlook
2003.

 

[Brian Tillman]

I just purchased Outlook 2003 and I have Word 2002 installed. When I
try to set Word as my e-mail editor, I get the message, "You must be
running the current version of Microsft Word in order to use this
feature". This has to be a joke, right??

The only time this has EVER worked was with Word 97 and Outlook 98 or
Outlook 2000, years and years ago. Since then, the versions of Outlook and
Word have had to match.

 

[Brian Tillman]

I experienced the same thing and was furious to learn that Outlook
2003 was actually giving me fewer features than Outlook 2000 still
being used in other computers.

What features do you believe Outlook 2000 had that Outlook 2003 does not?