lmao...
That's what I do, I spend a few thousand dollars on nice hardware and put Windows 98SE or perhaps 95 on it :-P
You would be correct however the one HUGE difference is support. When the creators no longer support the software, and no one makes anything for it, you're kindof at a loss aren't you. Yes using your example 2003 is backwards compadible, however the newer file formats are much more efficient. Lastly calling microsoft on a access 97 issue will meet you with a wall (which is why our company who uses access as a database front end was required to upgrade to access 2003 last year).
It's the nature of the beast, and it is in your best interest to keep up with the times. Yeah, software upgrading sucks, however you can't be installing an o/s that's 10 years old and not expect issues.
That's what I do, I spend a few thousand dollars on nice hardware and put Windows 98SE or perhaps 95 on it :-P
Office 97 vs. Office 2003. That's what matters, even though aside from the the info in the "About" box, for the average user there is next to nothing that Office 2003 will do for them that they couldn't already do in Office 97.
You would be correct however the one HUGE difference is support. When the creators no longer support the software, and no one makes anything for it, you're kindof at a loss aren't you. Yes using your example 2003 is backwards compadible, however the newer file formats are much more efficient. Lastly calling microsoft on a access 97 issue will meet you with a wall (which is why our company who uses access as a database front end was required to upgrade to access 2003 last year).
It's the nature of the beast, and it is in your best interest to keep up with the times. Yeah, software upgrading sucks, however you can't be installing an o/s that's 10 years old and not expect issues.