none
Outlook 2013 not compatible with Exchange 2003

    Question

  • Hello

    Some of my customers bought SBS 2003 R2 just before SBS 2008 was released so they have systems which are only 4+ years old. SBS 2003 came with Exchange 2003 pre-installed. Outlook 2013 does not support Exchange 2003. So they cannot upgrade their Outlook clients to 2013 version.

    Microsoft, is this correct?!

    Thursday, January 17, 2013 9:21 AM

Answers

All replies

  • Outlook2013 is not supported on Exchange2003:
    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee624351.aspx#section10

    Don
    (Please take a moment to "Vote as Helpful" and/or "Mark as Answer", where applicable.
    This helps the community, keeps the forums tidy, and recognises useful contributions. Thanks!)


    • Edited by DonPick Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:50 AM
    • Marked as answer by BayTree Friday, February 08, 2013 8:12 AM
    Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:49 AM
  • Hi,

    Just checking in to see if Don's information was helpful. Please let us know if you would like further assistance.

    Cheers,
    Tony Chen
    Forum Support
    ________________________________________
    Come back and mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Monday, January 21, 2013 1:36 AM
    Moderator
  • Don's reply is not helpful. The list says Outlook 2013 is not compatible with Exchange 2003 which I already know.

    My point is that I have customers with "new" SBS 2003 installations bought in Q1 and Q2 2008 who cannot upgrade to Outlook 2013.

    To illustrate how crazy this situation is: they can access their SBS emails using iPads, iPhones and even Windows 8 Mail. But not Outlook 2013

    A fix would be good

    • Edited by BayTree Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:57 AM
    Wednesday, January 23, 2013 7:51 AM
  • As far as I know, SBS emails system is as the same as Exchange and Outlook 2013 can’t connect to a computer that is running Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 or an earlier version of Exchange.

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc178996.aspx

    Cheers,
    Tony Chen
    Forum Support
    ________________________________________
    Come back and mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:09 AM
    Moderator
  • My point is that SBS systems purchased in Q1 and Q2 2008 are only 4.5 years old.

    The customer expects a good 10 years of top quality service from Microsoft.

    They have been left high and dry by Microsoft's decision not to include support for these systems in Outlook 2013

    !?


    • Edited by BayTree Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:20 AM
    Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:20 AM
  • Sorry for my misunderstanding.

    I've found some information about the support lifecyle from our website: (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/default.aspx?LN=en-us&x=15&y=11)

    http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?sort=PN&alpha=Windows+Small+Business+Server+2003&Filter=FilterES&esdate=0

    Please connect Microsoft Customer Service directly for help: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/295539

    Cheers,
    Tony Chen
    Forum Support
    ________________________________________
    Come back and mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.
    If you have any feedback on our support, please contact tnmff@microsoft.com.


    Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:36 AM
    Moderator
  • Hello, what can I do for you further?

    Tony Chen

    Monday, January 28, 2013 7:17 AM
    Moderator
  • What shall I tell the customers who bought SBS 2003 R2 in 2008 and who want to upgrade to Outlook 2013? Microsoft has withdrawn support for SBS 2003 even though it is only 4.5 years old? Or will this issue be addressed by Microsoft?

    Monday, January 28, 2013 8:23 AM
  • What shall I tell the customers who bought SBS 2003 R2 in 2008 and who want to upgrade to Outlook 2013? Microsoft has withdrawn support for SBS 2003 even though it is only 4.5 years old? Or will this issue be addressed by Microsoft?


    Why did you allow your customer to buy a product that was out-dated when bought new?  Sounds like a you issue and not Microsoft.
    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:28 PM
  • "What shall I tell the customers who bought SBS 2003 R2 in 2008 and who want to upgrade to Outlook 2013? Microsoft has withdrawn support for SBS 2003 even though it is only 4.5 years old? Or will this issue be addressed by Microsoft?"

    I'm not Microsoft, but in my opinion your customer has had a great 5 years with an SBS solution that is now 10 years old (and was 5 years old already when they implemented it. SBS 2008 RTM'd in April of 2008). That is a perfectly reasonable life-cycle to expect. Five years of service. If they want to continue using this 10-year old product, no problem, they just need to stick with Outlook 2003-2010. Seems completely reasonable to me and yep, it's time for them to upgrade now if they want the latest support.

    Do you really expect someone to be running 10-year old software with no support issues? I'm amazed things still work as well as they do considering.

    Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:14 PM
  • Customers had no option but to buy SBS 2003 R2 in the first half of 2008 because SBS 2008 had not yet been released = 4.5 years use so far.

    Lack of support in Office 2013 is the problem not SBS 2003

    Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:03 AM
  • Bryan you haven't read the thread.

    This issue applies to anyone in the world who needed to buy an SBS server before November 2008 (because SBS 2008 had not yet been released)

    Outlook 2013 does not support those SBS customers after only 4 years. However iPhones, iPads, Windows 8 mail etc.. all support SBS 2003 no problem. What a crazy situation.

    Thursday, February 07, 2013 9:49 AM
  • Customers had no option but to buy SBS 2003 R2 in the first half of 2008 because SBS 2008 had not yet been released = 4.5 years use so far.

    Lack of support in Office 2013 is the problem not SBS 2003

    So, just don't deploy Office 2013. What exactly do your users need from Office 2013 that Office 2010 can't provide? Office 2010 is MUCH better than Office 2013 anyway. I'm confused as to what the problem is here.

    Just stick with 2010, and there are no problems. That is the solution. The customer AND you are being unreasonable to expect continued support for a 10 year old solution, regardless of when YOU decided to recommend and install it for them. They (and you) knew when they (you) installed it that it was already a 5 year old solution and support was iffy. Again, they should feel lucky to have been involved with a product that is 10-years old now and has provided them excellent service for the past 4.5 years.

    This is all perfectly reasonable. Either a> stick with Office 2010, b> Upgrade the customer to a newer server, or c> find another e-mail/office solution for the users. That's your pick. bottom line, Outlook 2013 doesn't work with SBS 2003 - and it's not going to work anytime soon, if ever. Complaining how a software vendor won't support their version product after 10 years is just going to make people laugh - as that is excellent service IMO.

    • Edited by ABCFED Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:36 PM
    Thursday, February 07, 2013 3:33 PM
  • Hi ABCDEF

    Don't be daft. It is perfectly reasonable for customers to expect Microsoft products to fully supported by other Microsoft products for 10 years following retail purchase.

    Thursday, February 07, 2013 5:01 PM
  • Hi ABCDEF

    Don't be daft. It is perfectly reasonable for customers to expect Microsoft products to fully supported by other Microsoft products for 10 years following retail purchase.

    No, it isn't. I don't recall seeing ANY Microsoft roadmap that shows or guarantees 10 years of support for all future products to access a service. Why would you think or expect that Microsoft products are "fully supported" by other Microsoft products for 10 years? Show me where it says that SBS 2003 services will be supported by all Microsoft Office products for at least 10 years. I didn't think so. There is no such claim.

    Again, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Just don't deploy Office 2013. Stick with the fantastic 2010. Problem solved easily and you save a ton of money at the same time. Everything will continue to still work for years to come.

    Bottom line - your end users simply DO NOT NEED Outlook 2013 for any task whatsoever - or is there something I don't know about Outlook 2013 that will make your particular users more productive over Outlook 2010?

    • Edited by ABCFED Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:57 PM
    Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:49 PM
  • I have marked this thread as answered.

    Outlook 2013 does not support Exchange 2003 in SBS 2003 Premium R2

    Friday, February 08, 2013 8:13 AM
  • So how can we buy Office 2010 ? It has been withdrawn from distribution. "Discontinued"

    Monday, February 11, 2013 4:20 PM
  • I have the same issue. It suddently forced its way into my consciousness just in the last couple of weeks when Dell replaced Office 2010 with Office 2013 as the version of choice for new workstations.

    I fully understand Microsoft's right to move forward, but it is still true that most of my small business clients just want to get their work done--not keep up with the latest server OS, so this does create a rather sudden need for major upgrades for them. They have had no pressing reason (server performance, features, or storage capacity) to upgrade their servers, and since these servers are at least four years old, they are effectively being forced to upgrade to hardware as well. This, of course, leaves the existing SBS 2003 servers useless.

    A bit of searching online, though, revealed some temporary relief in the fact that some online vendors still offer Office 2010. So, for now, I am ordering all my Dell systems w/o Office and getting Office 2010 separately at places that still offer it, such as evaluesoftware.com. That might get me through until I can convince all those small business owners to buy off on a new $6,000+ server and all the empty 20-hour weekends required for me to migrate all those SBS servers.


    • Edited by Brian D. Hart Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:17 PM Correct spelling
    Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:16 PM
  • Yea this is pretty terrible really.  I mean plenty of organizations are still running on 2003 or even 2000.  We just upgraded to 2003 Exchange about 3 years ago.  I just installed the trial to check it out without actually checking 1st to see if it was compatible (just assumed it would be).  This is a huge disappointment.  One day Microsoft may realize that most of their customers don't run out and upgrade their software as soon as it's out(or for several years after even).  The ones that do are a minority.
    Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:50 PM
  • Actually you do have some options.

    OVL licencing will allow your customer to use a previous version of Office using downgrade rights

    Otherwise its IMAP/POP3 or Windows 8 Mail

    Friday, March 01, 2013 3:35 PM
  • Actually you do have some options.

    OVL licencing will allow your customer to use a previous version of Office using downgrade rights

    Otherwise its IMAP/POP3 or Windows 8 Mail

    This sounds to me like the correct solution, you can buy 2013 and downgrade to 2010, no problem at all.

    I'm not sure, but you may be able to mix Word 2013, Excel 2013, etc. with Outlook 2010. Not sure how this would work from a licensing point of view, but from a technical point of view I know it's possible. Downgrade rights normally mean you can't use both versions, I'm not sure how this would apply to individual components. Use the rest of the Office suite on 2013, but Outlook on 2010 with downgrade rights.

    Would be a bit cruel if that requires a separate Outlook license to downgrade.

    Other option is to upgrade SBS to 2008 or 2011, if you can buy that somehow.

    Personally, I would have bought SA to begin with, especially on a product that's about to be replaced.

    Microsoft promises support for 10 years from date of release only, not date of purchase.


    MCP Windows Server MCTS .NET

    Saturday, March 02, 2013 11:58 AM
  • ABCFED - read what the issue is before you slam someone.  Not the place for ranting.  solutions would be better.

    I have clients in the same boat.  2008 was NOT available 4 to 5 years ago.  My solution thus far is not upgrading anything for them.  If MS is unable to solve, then another OS will have to work.  My clients will be afraid to purchase new server licenses for fear of this happening again.

    And to answer your questions about 10 years - yes, I expect MS to support server OS's up too 10 years after the next version comes out.

    Monday, March 04, 2013 12:15 AM
  • ABCFED - read what the issue is before you slam someone.  Not the place for ranting.  solutions would be better.

    I have clients in the same boat.  2008 was NOT available 4 to 5 years ago.  My solution thus far is not upgrading anything for them.  If MS is unable to solve, then another OS will have to work.  My clients will be afraid to purchase new server licenses for fear of this happening again.

    And to answer your questions about 10 years - yes, I expect MS to support server OS's up too 10 years after the next version comes out.

    First of all, I'm not associated with MS in any way.The reality is, MS has decided not to support Outlook 2013 in their SBS 2003 product. Again, I'm not with Microsoft. I didn't decide this.

    Second of all, I understand you "expect MS to support", but where in the TOS does it say that? You both expected something that perhaps actually is not included. That's like going to a car dealer and expecting the sales guy to give you the best deal first time. What are you basing this assumption of service on?

    • Edited by ABCFED Monday, March 04, 2013 2:24 AM
    Monday, March 04, 2013 2:22 AM
  • I completely agree. This is just bad business. I don't think Microsoft realizes, or cares, how many businesses still use exchange 2003. And, when faced with the choice of upgrading to new server just to upgrade their office when their old server works fine, or to simply not upgrade to Office 2013 I guarantee that most of them will choose simply to not upgrade to Office 2013. They are simply telling people with 2003 exchange servers that they don't want their money. That is those who weren't forced to buy Office 2013 with the purchase of a new computer. Companies, especially small businesses, do not have the IT budget to buy a new server every 4 years. And these are the companies that buy Windows SBS.

    And what's worse, Office 2013 does not tell you it can not connect to a 2003 server while you are trying to configure the server settings. It will connect, find the user's name and complete server configuration like normal. It's not until you actually try to use Outlook does it give you a clue that it will not work. I say give you a clue because it doesn't come out and say the versions are incompatible, it just gives you a very cryptic error message that most  end users will interpret  as simply something being wrong.

    And now since Windows 8 is a complete steaming pile of OS there is absolutely nothing to compel anyone to purchase any new Microsoft software product. No one wants a Windows phone or tablet and they sure don't want their computer to look like the phone or tablet they don't want.

    As an IT guy this is very frustrating. And what's more frustrating is Windows 7 was great. I know Microsoft can do better.

    Thursday, March 21, 2013 3:13 AM
  • HI

    I was wondering, as Outlook 2013 supports ActiveSync EAS, is it possible to make that work with Exchange 2003?

    Regards

    Wednesday, March 27, 2013 12:06 PM
  • As a Quality Manager for a manufacturing company in the UK, I also have responsibility for our IT infrastructure. I do not see why we whould be forced to upgrade or SBS2003 software just because Microsoft have decided to not include appropriate coding in their latest Outlook 2013 release. We want to buy the Office 2013 release when we purchase new PC's and, when we have a need to, will upgrade our server and software at the same time. But only when we want to.

    Great, thanks for trying to make Outlook 2013 better but no thanks for the headache that you are now causing me. SBS2003 works very well - and as a previous contributor has said - will connect with iPads, Blackberrys etc.. with no problem.

    Microsoft - your job is to support your customer base - not ride rough-shod over it. This is not support - this is bullying your customers into upgrading. Other industries - the automotive industry and the aerospace industries for example - will support their customers purchases for many years even, certainly over 15 to 20 years. Why do Microsoft think they are so special that they do not have to?

    Wednesday, April 03, 2013 10:27 AM
  • No ActiveSync doesn't seem to work
    Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:14 AM
  • It's worse than that Lawrence. It looks like the entire SBS product line has been scrapped. It seems MS don't want small businesses to run Exchange on premise but instead go to Office 365 on monthly subscription.

    Wednesday, April 03, 2013 11:19 AM
  • As a Quality Manager for a manufacturing company in the UK, I also have responsibility for our IT infrastructure. I do not see why we whould be forced to upgrade or SBS2003 software just because Microsoft have decided to not include appropriate coding in their latest Outlook 2013 release. We want to buy the Office 2013 release when we purchase new PC's and, when we have a need to, will upgrade our server and software at the same time. But only when we want to.


    Okay, then just leave everything as it is and don't upgrade anyone. Everything will continue to work 100% and it won't even cost the company anything. All the employees will still have access to all the services they have been using. All the employees will be able to use all their tools with no re-training or any issues. You're not "forced" to do anything. Just stick with Office 2010 and SBS 2003. Done. Problem solved. Actually, there was never a problem.

    Do you really want to upgrade you users to the crappy Office 2013 interface anyway? I mean, they'd lose features and complain heavily if you upgraded them. Just keep everything the way it is for the next year and re-evaluate your SBS 2003 choice next year. Why do you want to spend so much money?

    Do I personally agree with this decision? No. But, comping to these forums and complaining about support for a product that is now over 10 years old will get you nowhere. MS has much bigger fish to fry and much bigger wads of money to grab from other customers. SBS isn't worth it to them anymore and there is no continual streams of money flowing from that solution - therefore, MS has killed it.

    So either:

    1. Suck it up and keep what you have. Problem solved. No cost.

    2. Upgrade everything. Cause a hornets nest of issues with end users and end up costing the company a wazoo of money and time to really accomplish nothing spectacular in the end.

    3. Move to something else. Go Linux and OpenOffice or Google Docs. Lets see how that goes for you.

    • Edited by ABCFED Wednesday, April 03, 2013 3:13 PM
    Wednesday, April 03, 2013 3:03 PM
  • Server 2003 & Exchange 2003 go end of support April 2014 so you are going to have to upgrade by then anyway, between now and then I would just do as others have suggested and run Office 2010 (Office 2013 has downgrade rights).

    Peter Whitehouse - Scanstation.co.uk

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:34 AM
  • Personally I think everyone who suggests stick with Office 2010 has completely missed the point. Customers who bought SBS in 2008 already have a "new" server and they want to upgrade to the latest office version of Office. They can't. Oh dear.


    • Edited by BayTree Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:54 AM
    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:54 AM
  • How is a server purchased in 2008 (4.5 years ago) new exactly?

    Peter Whitehouse - Scanstation.co.uk

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:59 AM
  • Personally I think everyone who suggests stick with Office 2010 has completely missed the point. Customers who bought SBS in 2008 already have a "new" server and they want to upgrade to the latest office version of Office. They can't. Oh dear.


    That's neat that you think that way. However, that is not reality. You sold the customer a 5 year old product 5 years ago. That's reality and that's not a "new" server no matter how you look at it. Microsoft never claimed future support guarantees for what you now want to do with this now 10-year old product. If you told the customer otherwise, you were very much mistaken or misinformed and they were given very bad advice.

    You need to now take ownership for the problem you've now caused your customer by guaranteeing functionality and future service support that the vendor never stated or agreed to in the first place. Are you not going to take ANY personal ownership of this problem or do you really feel that this is all on Microsoft for the situation? Do you have any evidence or legal claim to making Office 2013 be supported in SBS 2003 beyond just that you want it to?

    • Edited by ABCFED Wednesday, April 10, 2013 4:00 PM
    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:54 PM
  • Dear Mr ABCDEF

    Microsoft sold SBS 2003 to customers right up until late 2008 not me.

    Please stop your idiotic posts.

    Wednesday, April 10, 2013 4:08 PM
  • Microsoft sold SBS 2003 to customers right up until late 2008 not me.

    That is irrelevant. The fact is, it was sold without any guarantee of compatibility with Office 2013. It doesn't matter when you sold the customer the product. No legal contract =an incorrect "assumption" on your part. That's how it works.

    • Edited by ABCFED Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:35 AM
    Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:34 AM
  • Seriously....ABCFED....give up dude!  :)

    These clowns are obviously not going to listen to a word you are saying.

    Some people should really take a look at their business practises...I don't know...maybe look at the MS roadmap if they are going to recommend products to customers...that way they might actually see that some things will or wont work.

    Also, the number of people that don't actually read the licenses that they buy....you'd have thought that any reseller of an MS product would check the legal side of what they are doing...but I guess that's where 'cowboys' come from in this industry...


    Friday, April 12, 2013 3:22 PM
  • Hey guys back off!

    First I am not a software vendor and have never sold any software to anyone. Mr ABCFED is wrong in every respect and honestly rather offensive.

    It's simple, Outlook 2013 does not connect to SBS 2003 server software which was being promoted and sold by Microsoft until 2008. That is a shame.

    End of story already!

    Friday, April 12, 2013 4:28 PM
  • From my point of view, I don't see what's wrong with software that's released 5 years apart to not be compatible with each other. We are talking about software that's 10 years apart. Microsoft announced plans back in 2008 to discontinue SBS 2003, even before Windows 2008 was released. Even when assessing the product to purchase initially, somehow the name SBS 2003 should have been a giveaway.

    SBS 2003 is dead, Windows 2003 is dead. MCSA/MCSE 2003 is being retired this quarter. The old Exchange MAPI is dead, that's why we're using EWS & ActiveSync nowadays.

    I usually recommend Software Assurance, especially on a product that's near it's end-of-life, that makes it simpler to upgrade.

    I fail to comprehend why it's so important to upgrade to Outlook 2013, but not to Exchange Server 2013. I have not yet found one feature in Outlook 2013 that I can't live without, but if I was stuck using Exchange 2003, I certainly would not be happy. Priority of upgrades should be considered. It would probably be cheaper to upgrade the server than upgrade Office, depending on the amount of users, CALs are significantly cheaper than the cost of Office. One license for Office Professional Plus 2013 can buy you something like 10 CALs for Exchange Server 2013, which would be more useful anyway.


    MCP Windows Server MCTS .NET

    Friday, April 12, 2013 5:01 PM
  • You dont, do you? Well, you've never operated a budget obviously. Certainly not a tight one

    When talking 150 to 350 per licence for office 2013, 4 to 10k or more for an sbs upgrade/roll-out, then its a problem.

    Clients don't ask when they buy things.  They just expect them to work. As weve installed updates, and service packs, 2003 is hardly a 10 year old program, except in name. When I tell my clients they had to either upgrade after 4 years, or not use the lastest tools from the same vendor, they looked at me sideways. 

    How about Lotus Notes? I believe that service is 20 years old or more, and I'm fairly confident I can set that up on 2013. 

    And little/no notice to the base that the incompatibility would exist, nor any clear notice of it on the promotional page, commercials or other adds which sell our clients on the fancy new interface, nor a choice when you buy a pre-installed windows 8 PC from a vendor. That's not cool. 

    My company is deeply offended by that decision, and were pushing alternatives now. Thanks Microsoft, you make so many decisions, so easy. 

    Friday, April 12, 2013 7:04 PM
  • Ill be sure to mention to my clients, on the Microsoft road map you will be responsible for roughly 2500 a year in licencing.  That works nicely for small business, with 10 or 20 users. 

    Ps, looking for alternative? Google Apps is a great suite to stop paying MS. Ubuntu has lots of free crap (little more effort though) Really, You have choices. 

    • Edited by swscully Friday, April 12, 2013 7:09 PM
    Friday, April 12, 2013 7:07 PM
  • I am surprised this thread is so long from partners who should know better than to purchase or suggest to purchase software that is 4 to 5 years old.  Do your homework and review MS road map!  Suggest Software assurance to your clients when you know there is a risk of a newer version coming out.

    It is your responsibility to strategically guide your clients to avoid pitfalls like this one.


    Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:38 PM
  • You dont, do you? Well, you've never operated a budget obviously. Certainly not a tight one

    When talking 150 to 350 per licence for office 2013, 4 to 10k or more for an sbs upgrade/roll-out, then its a problem.

    Clients don't ask when they buy things.  They just expect them to work. As weve installed updates, and service packs, 2003 is hardly a 10 year old program, except in name. When I tell my clients they had to either upgrade after 4 years, or not use the lastest tools from the same vendor, they looked at me sideways. 

    How about Lotus Notes? I believe that service is 20 years old or more, and I'm fairly confident I can set that up on 2013. 

    And little/no notice to the base that the incompatibility would exist, nor any clear notice of it on the promotional page, commercials or other adds which sell our clients on the fancy new interface, nor a choice when you buy a pre-installed windows 8 PC from a vendor. That's not cool. 

    My company is deeply offended by that decision, and were pushing alternatives now. Thanks Microsoft, you make so many decisions, so easy. 

    Sounds like Office isn't for you anyway with your budgetary concerns. You should look into Google Docs (only $50/user/year). In fact, if you go with Chrome machines instead of Windows 8 machines, you'll save 50% (at least) on each machine you need to buy in the future.

    Lotus Notes? Please. You jest. That would completely blow your budget too.

    Friday, April 26, 2013 2:28 PM
  • @swscully

    It is sad you had to tell your client something different than you initially promised them or that they assumed. Other consultants, who did not tell their clients information that was not supported by the vendor, did not have to tell their clients anything different. 

    I think it's fantastic you are looking at alternative solutions. There are a lot out there.

    Good luck!

    Friday, April 26, 2013 6:02 PM
  • This is exactly what happened to me...

    I recently signed up for graduate level courses online, and the learning institution required MS Office for their classes. They offered both 2010 and 2013 at a significant discount, and they were priced the same. I didn't jump in blind, but I asked my IT Administrator at work about 2013 and its backward compatibility. He hadn't heard of any issues.

    I remember when Office 2007 released, the new file extension created a lot of problems with Office 2003 and older, so I was leery, but decided that since they were being offered at the same price, and both my bosses had acquired new Windows 8 machines (which I assumed came with Office 2013, yet did not verify this), I got the Office 2013. We've spent HOURS trying to configure the Exchange on my laptop, and we kept getting a cryptic error.

    There was NO disclaimer from MS about the lack of backward compatibility it the product's description, and almost NO published information on the web (I Googled and searched threads extensively) about any problems with 2013 and its relationship to 2003 Exchange. I surely wish I had known, but it would be nice if MS could at least officially acknowledge the problem, and provide a work-around, even if it's a simple procedure of how to downgrade to 2010.

    Very frustrating, and many hours spent wasted because of what we thought was a configuration error, not a compatibility issue!

    P.S.

    I have a Droid Moto Xoom, and iPhone 4 that has connected to our Exchange and are working with no problem... Now I'm forced to use our company webmail because of this compatibility issue!

     


    • Edited by WillBev Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:53 PM
    Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:51 PM
  • Bay,

    In my many years of IT observation (not administration), I've noticed that MS has a pattern... They "hurry up" and release "the next big thing" without working out all the bugs and problems, and with little regard to backward compatibility, and then uses threads like these to create their Service Packs to address the issues. It seems it uses its customer base for research and development! Because they are the 1000 lb. gorilla, they KNOW that people have to go along, simply because of market share...

    This is the MAIN reason people are drinking the Apple Kool-Aid. I mean, they're not perfect by any means, but nearly ALL of their products are interlinkable and backward compatible. 

    There's a reason 95% of viruses out there are designed for PC... They have the most market-share, but they also have the easiest system to poke holes...

    My next laptop is going to be a MacBook. Even if you had to run Parallels, Mac runs Windows better than a PC! I just never had the budget to spent $2500 on a laptop...

    But maybe that's why they can give such good support, because you're paying for it on the front end in the price of the hardware... In the end, with these big companies, it's only about one thing... REVENUE.

    • Edited by WillBev Wednesday, May 01, 2013 1:01 PM
    Wednesday, May 01, 2013 1:00 PM
  • Ill be sure to mention to my clients, on the Microsoft road map you will be responsible for roughly 2500 a year in licencing.  That works nicely for small business, with 10 or 20 users. 

    Ps, looking for alternative? Google Apps is a great suite to stop paying MS. Ubuntu has lots of free crap (little more effort though) Really, You have choices. 


    SWscully,

    Eh, not ALL of us have choices... I had a choice between 2010 and 2013 when my University required MS Office for their classes, but chose 2013 erroneously when I couldn't find ANY documentations nor disclaimers regarding lack of backward compatibility. It was only AFTER I purchased and installed it (twice, since I thought there was perhaps an installation error from the cryptic error I was receiving) that I found out: "! Task 'wrbevxxxx@ sxxxx.com - Sending and Receiving' reported error (0x8004010F): 'Outlook data file cannot be accessed.'"

    Why not? Did I type something in wrong? Is the file extension different? Is my password wrong?

    I looked under Google Search for that error, and kept getting threads with "configuration errors." I spend many hours trying to "figure out" the problem using different Proxy settings, etc., and NEVER ONCE did anyone say that the software may not be compatible with my company's older server, nor was the error generated by MS Outlook 2013 specific enough to tell me that "This product cannot communicate with SBS 2003." I didn't make any decisions 5 years ago about server purchases... I was just hired in October 2012. I didn't have anything MS Office that came with my laptop, and I COULDN'T make the correct purchasing decision because of the lack of published information out there regarding this issue! This woman-owned small business I now work for WILL NOT upgrade their SBS2003 for quite some time simply because of expense and downtime, but NOW I know to inform people to be careful of Office 2013. I just wish I didn't have to PAY for their software without disclaimers to discover this! Might as well tack this expense onto "tuition" I'm paying to get my graduate degree...

    If they're (MS) not going to support SBS2003, then fine, but TELL ME THAT before I purchase it, or at the very least, give me an error I can understand!

    Wednesday, May 01, 2013 1:23 PM

  • Eh, not ALL of us have choices... I had a choice between 2010 and 2013 when my University required MS Office for their classes, but chose 2013 erroneously when I couldn't find ANY documentations nor disclaimers regarding lack of backward compatibility. It was only AFTER I purchased and installed it (twice, since I thought there was perhaps an installation error from the cryptic error I was receiving) that I found out: "! Task 'wrbevxxxx@ sxxxx.com - Sending and Receiving' reported error (0x8004010F): 'Outlook data file cannot be accessed.'"

    Why not? Did I type something in wrong? Is the file extension different? Is my password wrong?

    I looked under Google Search for that error, and kept getting threads with "configuration errors." I spend many hours trying to "figure out" the problem using different Proxy settings, etc., and NEVER ONCE did anyone say that the software may not be compatible with my company's older server, nor was the error generated by MS Outlook 2013 specific enough to tell me that "This product cannot communicate with SBS 2003." I didn't make any decisions 5 years ago about server purchases... I was just hired in October 2012. I didn't have anything MS Office that came with my laptop, and I COULDN'T make the correct purchasing decision because of the lack of published information out there regarding this issue! This woman-owned small business I now work for WILL NOT upgrade their SBS2003 for quite some time simply because of expense and downtime, but NOW I know to inform people to be careful of Office 2013. I just wish I didn't have to PAY for their software without disclaimers to discover this! Might as well tack this expense onto "tuition" I'm paying to get my graduate degree...

    If they're (MS) not going to support SBS2003, then fine, but TELL ME THAT before I purchase it, or at the very least, give me an error I can understand!

    The lack of support for exchange 2013 is well documented. Its on the Office 2013 wikipedia page for instance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_2013#Removed_features

    It also sounds like you got a wonky message, this is what you should see:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/rathomas/archive/2012/12/01/outlook-2013-unable-to-connect-to-an-exchange-2003-mailbox.aspx



    Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:02 AM
  • Have the same problem. Maybe MS makes the server upgrades easier and faster and we would have upgraded a while ago. Now there is not even a SBS version anymore. MS keep up the good work and our management will go 100 % Linux!

    Monday, June 03, 2013 11:11 PM
  • This is a joke, I'm now left between a rock and a hard place, Microsoft could not care less.

    I have been using Office 2003 for years, no problems.  New laptop, upgraded to office 2013 as I was told outlook 2003 is not supported by Windows 8. However now I'm on outlook 2013, I am told that this is not compatible with exchange 2003 servers, so to use email I have to use the rather poor web based  version of outlook web access.

    The built in "mail" app is poor, no ability to flag emails. Outlook express would have done me, but no that is gone to.

    I've asked Microsoft if I can have outlook 2010, but they do not have it to buy or download.

    Royally stitched.

    Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:56 PM
  • To all, actually I'm not sure what all the fuss is about...  

    1.  Recommending a 5 year old product a couple of months before a new RTM and promising years of support is asinine.

    2.  Recommending a volume purchase of Office 2013 and not having the money to upgrade your back-office sounds like buying a new car and not being able to afford the gas to run it.

    3.  Do you really have a business need to upgrade to Outlook 2013 or are you just finding a reason to vent frustrations at Microsoft?

    4.  If you really wanted to save money you would put them all on OWA and not bother with Outlook at all.  Put the customer on a budgetary diet and be a hero!

    5.  3rd-Party Hosted Exchange?


    • Edited by Brian Mathis Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:06 PM Spelling
    Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:01 PM
  • Well, the solution has been mentioned before... Just buy your license (Office or Outlook) trough the Open Program (e.g. Open License), activate your license-key and get previous versions as well as 2013.

    I really, really do not understand all the fuzz. You have to deal with the decisions, whether you like it or not. Stop raving and start solving...

    Monday, July 08, 2013 12:29 PM
  • Unfortunately I understand your frustration but Microsoft are not the only company design backward compatibility in this way. This is frustrating and I am sure comments made on this forum only add to your frustration. <o:p></o:p>

    I would seriously consider looking into office 365 as a permanent solution to your problem and this would ensure you are always up to date and the costs can be considerably cheaper.<o:p></o:p>

     

    Thank you<o:p></o:p>

    Monday, July 08, 2013 3:48 PM
  • There are several points that have been raised here and some not raised.

    1) Windows 8 & 8.1 I had a buddy in the South of France complain bitterly that he couldn't get his new notebook to work because it didn't have a start button enabled. So the market place provided one for him. Eventually MS fired the guy who was responsible for that O/S debacle and put the start button back into 8.1. My buddy had all the obvious answers that it should have been there natively in the first place! Proof enough that MS Can screw up!

    2) MS has a history of bad software development in the likes of Vista and extending the life of Windows XP so no its not unreasonable to expect software to be supported more than 4.5 years. So to expect that Outlook 2013 to connect to an SBS server when its only been deployed for 4.5 years isn't unreasonable.

    3) When BCM users of 2007 went and installed  Office 2010 and wanted BCM to be available too there was all sorts of BS going on that they were and weren't going to get access to download the BCM  2010 software. Eventually because of enough screaming and ranting BCM was made available. Why oh why does a customer have to scream MrSoftie?

    4) Not everyone in the era of Post Edward Snowden wants Office 365 and their data / emails in the cloud to be able to be easily hacked over.

    5) Our office manager is an expert in BCM 2010 and wants the new features in BCM 2013 where he needs more space to put notes. In that BCM 2013 is way better than BCM 2010. & I am sure other folks are going to want the backward compatibility too, so here we are we need SBS 2008 or higher ..

    When MSFT hears enough screaming they will get around to doing something about it making with Outlook 2013 compatible with  SBS2003 Exchange or I am sure that  Ubuntu & Google Docs is going to work real well for the bottom line @ MrSoftie!

    JM

    Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:36 PM
  • FWIW, IMHO this is not the answer.

    Several years ago I had service from Time Warner Cable (TWC). There was a problem that the engineers knew how to solve but couldn't because it required the company to spend money to put in bandwidth / cabling. I worked with the company for two years and for what ever reason they decided not to fix my issues. Eventually I got offered FIOS from Verizon. I've never looked back. No amount of advertising is ever going to get me to move my cable service back to TWC. I am sure I wasn't the only one that felt this way. There are millions of folks that will feel the same way about this incompatible nexus of Outlook 2013 / Exchange 2003 via SBS 2003..

    Once MrSoftie loses a customer because essentially MSFT is behaving like a bunch of jerks over software they should be supporting, they are never coming back. No advertising is going to fix that issue. When you move to Ubuntu and Google docs I doubt that anyone would come back.

    With all the profits MSFT is generating looking after customers is where the game is at. Not in pissing them off is a good place to start!

    JM

    Tuesday, July 09, 2013 9:55 PM
  • ill second the notion that not supporting exchange 2k3 with outlook 2013 was simply stupid. it doubt it would have taken much to continue the api for ex 2k3, even if they didn't want to officially support it. this is a Microsoft blunder in my opinion, but then it seems like they have a bunch of newbie interns up in Redmond designing software now, and really have no concept of ten year life cycle or that people are trying to maximize their value by using older software. this is not the first major idiot decision I have seen by M$. they quit supporting USB sync smartphone to outlook with windows 8 smartphones, wanting to push people's data into the great, secure, government-sponsored cloud! if M$ doesn't wake up and they keep pushing people into alternate products, guess what, the office cash cow will run itself dry; as people leave.

    Regarding open license program, which offers the downgrade privilege, it seems to me that that's about $110 more per copy of office std versus h/b, so that is another bummer. And it appears like you cannot downgrade retail office 2013 home/business. so that's a dead end. And with the misstep of not allowing to migrate 2013 license to another PC (which has been corrected), it appears like the only cloud-based software up in Redmond is coming from a joint.

    I'm just another early warning sign M$. wake up, your are loosing.

    Sunday, July 14, 2013 2:20 AM
  • First of all, you are clearly not a professional or you would understand that standard depreciation for a server is seven years, so yes, everyone but the punks who play at home and have no real world corporate experience expect a server and all of the associated software to be supported for at least that long.

    Has it been seven years since 2008 was released??

    Don't reply till you do the math. It isn't hard.

    Don't believe me? ask an accountant or the IRS.

    Oh, and try not to come off as such a smug a*s hole.

    Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:01 AM

  • Do I personally agree with this decision? No. But, comping to these forums and complaining about support for a product that is now over 10 years old will get you nowhere. MS has much bigger fish to fry and much bigger wads of money to grab from other customers. SBS isn't worth it to them anymore and there is no continual streams of money flowing from that solution - therefore, MS has killed it.

    It actually seems like the correct place to vent his frustrations, seeing as the reason why they set these forums up is so that they can get feedback from users. It is a form of "customer engagement". 

    It was not so you would have a place to show off how cool you are.

    Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:12 AM
  • Okay, fine. Let's assume you are right. Let's say Microsoft has just completely hosed you over and broken promises and tears are laying all over the ground. Everything you say is true. 7 years, sure...whatever you say. That's exactly correct.

    Now what? Are you going to find your customer a solution...or continue to whine and rely on math wizardry to not solve the real-world situation your customer is now in? Should we all sue Microsoft and waste our time and resources pursuing that dead end - yeah, that sounds like a winner plan. I mean, what do you want to see happen here? They are not going to bring it back, welcome to the world of reality. If they won't relent on the Start menu....then you're completely out of luck on begging for a change to MAPI support API's being re-introduced. There's no way...ever...this is coming back, so just move on.

    Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:12 AM
  • OK - I ran across this article as I was looking for a solution to the seemingly end-of-the-world problem of the lack of support for Exchange 2003 by Outlook 2013. I solved my problem two ways - I upgraded the customer to a true business-class Exchange E-mail system (Exchange 2013) and during the co-existence setup, I simply forced all users to connect to the legacy Exchange 2003 via RPC-Over-HTTP, removing MAPI and RPC from the equation all together. This works for the poor saps out there who are stuck supporting SBS as well. Problem solved.

    Now, to the theme this thread has amusingly taken...

    Please, for the love of god, stop trying to squeeze more life out of useless products. Old products, regardless of when someone purchased them, are meant to be replaced by newer, more technologically advanced products as they are released. Do some products last forever, sure...but technology solutions, in fact the entire technology industry, is built on the track of assured-obsolescence. The general rule we live by is that by the time a product is introduced to market, the life-cycle clock begins to tick away on it because it's already technically obsolete. This is the expectation I set with my customers and I firmly believe that everyone in the tech industry should set the same expectations with their customers as well. This is the reason product development and support contracts are built around the 3-7 year lifecycle. If techies or companies don't want to act appropriately when upgrades become necessary, then they flat-out deserve to get left behind in the dust. Adapt or die, folks...this is the world we live in. Personally, I prefer it this way because I hate to waste time putting band-aids on proverbial corpses. If the customer can't afford to upgrade to a solution that matches the feature-sets of their PCs, then it's time to get new customers. It's really a two-way street in this world - your customers pay you to help them make the right technical decisions, so do the right thing and guide them to the best solution and not the broken one you wish in your wildest dreams to magically have fixed by a company who definitely has the majority of users to look after. In the grand scheme of things, the number of users currently using Exchange 2003 is FAR less than those running 2007, 2010 and even 2013. Gartner posted those statistics recently somewhere, so I'm not blowing smoke here.

    Besides, in 5 years, it won't matter much anyway...it'll be way too cost effective to move small businesses to hosted cloud solutions exclusively. Even desktops are almost a relic at this point. Just saying...

    Monday, July 22, 2013 7:30 AM
  • If this post is hard to read, it's because of Dragonsoft!!  (sometimes it is like auto-correct on the phone - "I said WHAT!??")

    Overall I think this is the most interesting thread that I have ever read on Microsoft.com.

    As a computer for professional for over 30 years, I've always followed the context that software products are designed for a three to five-year term, to have more is a luxury.

    When I was first in the industry (1983), Microsoft had a tendency to change the software versions every year to two years. As we approached the era of Windows XP there was an expected lifetime use of three years. Every two years a new product would appear. So, when windows XP lasted well beyond the three-year term, it was pretty exciting to not have to spend money on new product, and we all enjoyed the decade of Windows XP.

    The new generation of IT professionals has somehow believe that software products should live more than five years, and it just blows my mind!

    The reason that I make this post, is because I've used SBS ever since Back Office Server 4.5, and the versions of small business server (now called Small Business Server) have always appeared on the market 1 to 3 years after the primary versions of Windows for which they are named.  So I always felt that there was a disadvantage to using small business server in that the products appearing inside of SBS had been on the market for a few years before being incorporated into the SBS package. It made me feel, at first, that Microsoft was waiting on the level of maturity within the product before creating the SBS package. Now that I look back on the whole process it made me think that the SBS team had some difficulty merging the products into a install package which could handle the intricacies of the licensing limitations on the SBS system.

    SBS 2003 was a great tool when it came out, but I found that it was riddled with security holes. To say the least some of my first SBS 2003 servers had their exchange system hacked by outside influences. (These were external facing servers who had websites and exchange server running with public domain names, even though there were firewalls!) After a few patches, DNS modifications, reverse DNS entries, and some changes in the exchange system, I was finally able to make the system secure and solid.

    My first real nightmare with SBS was when upgrading to SBS 2003 R2, which, yes, appeared around 2005. You cannot simply upgrade a machine from SBS to a new version.  You must purchase a new server, install the new SBS version, and migrate your entire installation to this new host. (While running SBS 2003 for several years and making backups on a tape, I realized that the new hardware on the market would not support a restore from my tape backup!)  The whole process is rather daunting as not all of the detailed steps to upgrade work as expected. I had to call, and pay, Microsoft to complete the process because exchange had trouble during the migration.

    So off we went with our new installation of SBS 2003 R2.  Then along came SBS 2008!  I went through the same steps again... new hardware, new software, and, yes, paid Microsoft, again, for support to migrate.

    When SBS 2011 appeared on the scene I was willing to upgrade again. Having gone through this, twice now, I  fully prepared the client to purchase a new system and to purchase the new software. But because I was faced with the whole entire nightmare of new hardware, migration, and having to call Microsoft to complete the process, I decided on a new approach. This time we were going to buy server which would run VMware.  (I was not going to get stuck in a hardware box that I could not replace if I ever needed to restore the operating system due to a massive failure.)  So off I went, purchasing a new box, installing VMware, and installing my favorite operating system, Microsoft SBS!

    Well, to say the least, it wasn't exactly as exciting as I had expected. Had some trouble getting VMware to settle into the new hardware, as there seemed to be some compatibility issues, but was able to work it out. Eventually, I was able to get started on the migration. Things went well up until the point that I got to the exchange migration, and ran into a similar problem as before! A call to Microsoft revealed that it was even a little daunting for the support personnel, but as I documented the things that they modified, and even performed a little cleanup, after they performed their cleanup!  I can happily say that I'm no longer worried about hardware issues, when it comes to restoring my SBS server in case of a failure!

    Overall I'm pleased with having used Microsoft SBS solutions over the past 10 years, but I would never expect, nor would I lead my customer to expect, that a product should last 10 years!

    Previous comments have indicated that server should last seven years because they can be depreciated that way, I believe that to be entirely false!  I live in Texas, and the state of Texas DIR program has adopted standards which state that you should replace your hardware every five years! State agencies have this as a requirement, and it is not optional!  Many state agencies have gone to leasing their equipment, which is a three-year term. (Where do you think off-lease equipment comes from, anyway?)

    One of my primary clients looked at me one day, and directly ask, "Okay, if we spend the $10,000 on the new server and software, how long should it last?"

    Obviously, I wanted to say, "Forever!" But, remembering something that my mother had said (always plan for the worst and you always come out on top!), I said back to them, "I believe we should plan for a three-year lifespan, and if we get any more than that, it will be a luxury." Needless to say, there have been some upgrades which lasted well more than three years, but there have been some which have been spot on.

    The SBS server is a huge savings over purchasing the individual products separately. But there have always been some drawbacks during the upgrade process which makes the entire feasibility of the installation top-heavy when it comes to support costs.  I have noticed is that the SBS servers require more labor to keep them running smooth, especially with backup procedures and backup software, as SBS always requires a third-party product to make a "real" (restorable) backup.

    A client's expectations should be that you are taking care of their business without them having to worry about what takes place in the tech room. They understand, and realize, that they can pay you a specific amount of money for your support without necessarily having to purchase new hardware. But a good, healthy relationship with your client means that they should always be willing to upgrade, whether it is a workstation or server.

    If you allow a client to be painted in a corner, then it's not their fault, it's your fault!  Because, they have no idea what the new technology can do, and don't realize what's on the market. It's your job to keep up with what's current and to deliver expectations which make them realize that each year has a dollar value attached to it, whether it is spent, or not.

    If you have a client is unwilling to spend money to upgrade their equipment, then there's something else wrong with their business, and you should probably consider that they may not be in business for very long. So don't make it your problem when they are unwilling to spend money.  You don't work for free.

    One last, quick example of the conversation that I had with a client who was unwilling to upgrade because things seem to be working so well.  I put it like this, "You pay me to make certain that your business operates in good times and in bad. Right now, everything is fine. If your building were to burn, and the only thing we had were the backups, I cannot go out and purchase new hardware and restore your system successfully.  The equipment that we have operating here is no longer available on the market.  If I were to find the equipment, it would be out-of-date, and most likely, used, and I cannot guarantee its compatibility or functionality. So, if I can't restore your system to an operational status, then what would you do? I don't believe there are any number of man-hours you can use to recover the information lost. You would probably have to go out of business! If your business becomes my business, then I would try to move to a position where my data is safe and my business can continue in the case of catastrophe. The only way I can do this, is to purchase new hardware, new software, and put you back in a position of compatibility with the market. One of the things I always try to do is keep your business operations at a point where if I die, someone else can come in and take my place. The whole idea here is to keep your business going."

    It didn't take them long to come back and surprise me, "Make a list of what you need. Don't give us a list of what we need to get by, tell us what we need to be productive for several years.  We don't want to patch this together and always have problems."

    And just as a note, your customer can write off $10,000+ per year for new equipment purchases.  I think the number may be higher now. I had one customer who purchased a $15,000 system in December and wrote off $10,000 in one year and the other $5000, a month later, in the next year!

    • Edited by Pflash Friday, July 26, 2013 4:36 PM codes added at bottom that were not from my typing
    Friday, July 26, 2013 4:35 PM
  • The problem is that there are a lot of small companies that bought SBS 2003 right before 2008 was available or got it as they were not sure that 2008 was stable yet. These places have a small number of users, 10 or less, and had to come up with a huge (for them) amount of money to by the server. They like having a local server and the flexibility it gives them. The server is working well. They now want to upgrade their desktops because. They go to Dell or wherever and order a shiny new pc with windows 8 and office 2013.

    They don't care that Microsoft does not want to maintain compatibility with a 10 year old exchange. Their server is not ready to be replaced! I have a few that are small now but were larger pre 2008 and lost a lot of people for economic reasons and are just not going to buy a new server.

    I don't really have an issue with 2013 not being compatible with ex2003. What I do have a problem with is the lack of options. Microsoft could fix this rather quickly by offering a downgrade 2010 outlook for SBS customers who buy an OEM 2013. That's it. That is all they need. Not a whole office 2010, just outlook. They could do it through the system that is used to download the installer for the Key Card installs. Go there, type in your code and one of the options is a copy (with a key) of outlook 2010. They could make it limited time, like end when the support for SBS 2008R2 is done.

    They won't do this because they want these customers to abandon their perfectly good paid for servers and start sending them subscription money for o365.

    • Proposed as answer by JJAA Monday, August 26, 2013 2:00 PM
    Thursday, August 15, 2013 8:58 PM
  • Don's reply is not helpful. I have both Vista and Windows 7 computers and am currently using Outlook 2010 professional on my Windows 7 laptop. It has been giving me numerous headaches like freezing up when I try to delete messages, "The server did not respond to this IMAP connection before the connection was terminated" is another error message I get frequently on Outlook 2010 etc. etc.. However, if I change to Outlook 2013 (I do not want the complete Office 2013 package), is it compatible with both Vista and Windows 7 so that I can install it on all my computers?

    Thanks,

    Sunday, September 01, 2013 1:15 PM
  • Since MS wont do anything simple to help (like continue selling the 2010 version as an option)

    A work-around might be to install office 2013 except outlook and install the old outlook 2003 client that came with SBS2003. Its not officially supported under Windows8, but that doesnt mean it wont work. And as I understand it, your CAL allows you to use that old version.

    Thursday, September 26, 2013 4:37 AM
  • A work-around might be to install office 2013 except outlook and install the old outlook 2003 client that came with SBS2003.

    At my work place, that's exactly what one colleague is doing, but unfortunately it's rather unstable with Windows 8.  Every time he puts something into an archive (PST file) such as when autoarchive takes place, he must immediately backup that PST file.  For some reason, the PST files go corrupt for no apparent reason every month or two, usually when Windows updates takes place.   Another problem is that Windows updates intermittently knocks out Outlook 2003 altogether (likely due to Office 2013 updates), e.g. this morning his Outlook 2003 refused to create new e-mail (kept saying "Operation failed"), even after restarting, so he had to reinstall Outlook 2003. 

    We will be moving to Office 365 soon, but it's unfortunate that Microsoft decided not to at least offer a temporary workaround, even if it meant selling Outlook 2010 separately until Exchange 2003's lifecycle officially ends next April as a few others pointed out here.  All we knew before purchasing Office 2013 was that it required Windows 7 or 8 and was limited to a single PC.  No mention of it requiring at least Exchange 2007 for Outlook until we went to try configuring it.

    Monday, September 30, 2013 2:18 PM
  • There seem to be a lot of people on here trying very hard not to understand or sympathize with the situation many of us find ourselves in, through no fault of our own.

    Not all companies have an open license agreement with Microsoft.  Many small businesses get their equipment from a variety of vendors.  Office 2013 is the only choice for new equipment through most of these vendors and is the only option retail.

    I have several clients who have Exchange 2003.  They have been on the fence about replacing their server over the last 3 years or so (many of them are in the same boat).  They see the cloud based servers and were waiting to decide which solution was the most stable.  Investing in a new in-house Exchange server would have been moronic a year or two ago, especially since their current Exchange 2003 servers were running fine.  Who would recommend that?  Not me.  I recommended they wait until cloud servers/services proved to be stable, which they now finally are (and in some cases still not so much, but I'm starting to move people over now).

    Office 2010 ran just fine with our Exchange 2003 servers.  I had no idea Office 2013 was not going to support Exchange 2003, and as so many people here have mentioned, I assumed it would, because every single other modern mail client on Blackberrys, iPhones, Android phones, etc. still do.  To make it incompatible simply must have been on purpose, and frankly seems a little malicious.

    Suddenly I find myself in a situation where I either need to sign these companies up for open license agreements (which in many cases we avoided in the past because it entitles Microsoft to audit your licenses whenever they see fit, at your expense), or upgrade a perfectly fine server, while we're on the verge of making a decision about eliminating an in-house server altogether.  

    I do not want to start an open license contract when I only need a couple of copies of office 2010 for new computers.  There is also the loss associated with copies of 2013 already purchased.  These are small companies and the loss of $500 - $1000 isn't that little to them.

    I do not want to upgrade the server (and have been avoiding it for a couple years in many cases) because we don't want an in-house server, and the cost and time associated with such a move is prohibitive.

    So everything is fine at these companies, except they are suddenly being forced to upgrade something they have no problems with, and which they don't intend to replace anyway.

    The criticisms of those having these same difficulties I am hearing from people here are really unfair.  Microsoft could make 2013 compatible and there was no reason not to.  It wouldn't have been hard.  They also could have extended the life of 2010 for a year or two, so people who discovered this could buy it in the meantime and know they had to make a change soon. 

    I'm sorry, but anyone who disagrees with this is just being a Microsoft apologist.  I have been trapped in these sorts of boxes by Microsoft before, and a lot of my clients who are being forced to upgrade right away are going to go the cloud route as mentioned . . . they're bitter about the abrupt change, and most are choosing Google Apps for Business over Office 365.  That's not to say they won't be using Office 2013 as their Office suite (for now), but it means their Exchange 2003 server is their last Microsoft mail server/service.  Now that Microsoft has made so many versions of Office 2013 Click-To-Run only (by not offering an MSI for some unknown reason, like they did for 2010), these same clients of mine are just adapting to the Gmail interface (Google Apps for Business if incompatible with Click-To-Run versions of Outlook).  Next will be Google Docs and Google Drive, I imagine.  

    I am not trying to bash Microsoft, I had fully intended to stay on course with them.  This is simply the reality of what's happening with MY clients.  You can disagree with me all you want, but 3 have switched over to Google (having been offered both solutions) and more are in the planning stages.  One is on Office 365 and they complain to me every day.  The service is still a little half-baked.  I guess we should have gone through an expensive upgraded to a new in-house Exchange server (they didn't want) or waited . . . oh wait, we couldn't wait.

    Thursday, October 03, 2013 3:15 PM
  • This is all hilarious.  I'm having the same problem, although I have been downgrading user's 2013 licenses to 2010 using Volume Licensing.  What is really funny about it is that iPad, iPhone, Android, Linux, even free PHP classes are compatible with Exchange 2003.  It can be done.  MS just commented out a line of code and disabled it for everyone.  THAT is the frustrating thing.  Who cares about 2 - 200 years of support.  Someday Exchange will be running on a quantum processor and it just won't be physically possible to communicate with it!  The idea is how EASY it would be for MS to just do this so that we can get our work done.  MS might have been a money maker long ago,  but they are going to need a new strategy into the future and a strong customer base.   This is not the way to win customers.  We aren't stupid.  We know how easy it was for MS to disable this feature.  We know how easy it would be to implement.  Didn't MS see this coming?  At some point people would like to use a computer to get work done, rather than it becoming a task in itself.  Don't you think that the moment a computer becomes it's own problem and it's own task, that it will be downgraded to it's simplest form and people will just not care so much about it's features anymore?  Wasn't it all you Windoze fans that said Macs were only for the elite? Now all the sudden "if you can't afford it, don't buy it!" is the new thing for MS??  LOL!  Someday people won't care so much about how easy it is to move someone to a different meeting with the click of a button.   Someday, they will just CALL THEM and realize what they were missing out on.  ;)
    • Edited by Javitzso Friday, October 18, 2013 5:38 PM
    Friday, October 18, 2013 5:27 PM
  • Perhaps everyone has forgotten.. I do not see it mentioned in the thread - perhaps it is..  

    SBS2003 comes with a clientapps folder.  In that folder is an SBS install of Outlook 2003.  For my clients, I've been installing a tailored install of office 2013, minus the outlook, and installing the SBS Outlook 2003 client.

    This resolves all issues, and let's face it, MOST people I know love Office 2003 and say it was the best ever made.  I appreciate 2013 is faster and uses GPU advances, but it's as ugly as a badly programmed web page.

    Thursday, November 14, 2013 5:58 AM
  • I've purchased such an SBS 2003 SBS R2 in 2007 as the best option at that time. And I do expect Microsoft to support me 10 years. So I demand from Microsoft a proper answer that addresses the SBS versions.

    As you know SBS versions are always release 2-4 years later.

    There is no technical reason to no support SBS 2003, at least in ActiveSync mode. It is just a marketing policy to force everybody switch to Office365.

    But I think this will prove a bad policy as many are switching away from MS solutions.

    Myself I am not going to pay again MS.

    Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:03 PM
  • "I've purchased such an SBS 2003 SBS R2 in 2007 as the best option at that time. And I do expect Microsoft to support me 10 years. So I demand from Microsoft a proper answer that addresses the SBS versions."

    Other than hopes, dreams, and unicorn wishes, can you please present to us your legal paperwork, contract, or legal support statement from Microsoft the guarantees you SBS 2003 support until 2017?

    As far as I know, just because you bought something in 2007 and then ASSUMED it was going to be supported for 10 years, does not actually make it supported. Magical support options do not magically appear out of thin air. So, I'm assuming you have a valid contract or legal document that shows you should be receiving support from Microsoft for the product you purchased if you assumed such legalese and informed your customer of the same...correct?

    Otherwise, you know what they say about assuming things....and it sounds like you assumed support would be available and have now learned a valuable lesson about how the software business actually works. The reality is...it is not supported...period...and unless you have legal recourse here to fight a multi-billion dollar company to force them to include the support, you're out of luck. In addition nobody is forcing you to upgrade or change anything. Why don't you just stay on SBS 2003 and utilize Outlook 2010? Why not just chill out with what you have?

    • Edited by ABCFED Saturday, November 23, 2013 3:40 PM
    Thursday, November 21, 2013 6:40 PM
  • If you will install the certificate from the sbs 2003 server using your web browser (Run as administrator) it works fine.  I am using outlook 2013 from a windows 8 RT Surface and it is working fine.

    Cheers :)

    • Proposed as answer by MS-WarWeary Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:27 PM
    Tuesday, December 03, 2013 12:57 AM
  • I just setup Outlook 2013 as an exchange client on a SBS 2003 server.


    1.  open a web browser (run as administrator)


    2.  Goto your-server.your-domain.extension/exchange  (office.mike.com/exchange)


    3.  Continue to website


    4.  at top of browser (Red bar) click to view cert.


    5.  install cert.


    6.  Select Place cert in the following store


    7.  Click Browse


    8.  Select trusted Root cert Authorities


    9.  OK, Next, Finish, Yes, OK, OK


    10.  Close Browser


    11.  Open Browser and go back to site again.


    12.  If red bar is gone you are successful.


    Now add exchange account to outlook 13

    Server:  office.mike.com
    Domain:  your-domain.local
    user:  your-domain-user-name (without @mike.com )
    Password: your-domain-user-password

    Bingo!

    • Proposed as answer by MS-WarWeary Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:26 PM
    Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:25 PM
  • Don's reply is not helpful. The list says Outlook 2013 is not compatible with Exchange 2003 which I already know.

    My point is that I have customers with "new" SBS 2003 installations bought in Q1 and Q2 2008 who cannot upgrade to Outlook 2013.

    To illustrate how crazy this situation is: they can access their SBS emails using iPads, iPhones and even Windows 8 Mail. But not Outlook 2013

    A fix would be good

    While searching for solutions to this problem, I came across the following. I haven´t been able to test this yet, but it might be worth a try ..

    http://ifix4you.com.my/hot-news/item/77-how-to-connect-exchange-activesync-z-push-or-other-eas-server-with-outlook-2013.html

    V

    Sunday, December 29, 2013 10:44 AM
  • I've got it working (with one quirk).

    1. Run a Repair on Outlook 2003

    2. Open Outlook, then Tools menu/Options then Mail Format tab. Set the mail format to Rich Text instead of HTML

    Outlook now runs, and can create new emails etc without errors, even if you run Word 2013 (this was the trigger for Outlook 2003 breaking on my setups).

    The quirk that I noticed was that if you close Outlook, it may not re-open. If this happens, go into Task Manager, Processes tab and end the Outlook.exe process. Then you can open Outlook again. This hasn't been consistent on my tests, some of the PCs had this quirk, while others seem not to.

    Now we've got some breathing space with Outlook running and can consider server upgrades in a state of relative calm.

    Tuesday, January 07, 2014 3:02 PM
  • My point is that SBS systems purchased in Q1 and Q2 2008 are only 4.5 years old.

    The customer expects a good 10 years of top quality service from Microsoft.

    They have been left high and dry by Microsoft's decision not to include support for these systems in Outlook 2013

    !?


    Hello. I just want to say that I agree with BayTree about being left high and dry. While I disagree that MS has to 'support' legacy product, I have to say that it's not cool to discontinue a product and make it unavailable for purchase  while at the same time making the replacement product incompatible with older servers.  This forces you to upgrade an entire Exchange organization when you need to just add an extra workstation . It's the equivalent of having to buy a new car when your 4.5 year old car needs new tires. Thankfully, automakers don't have the same policies, but then there is ample competition in that business.

    As far as downgrade rights, it's just BS. On brand PC's for example, you can get Win7 downgraded but no COA and no install media.

    I just got out of a client site where a Dell PC w/ Office was purchased for an org with SBS 2003. After activating it and finding out that it was incompatible, I uninstalled it using add/remove programs and installed Office 2003.

    When I tried to activate it, it said that telephone support is no longer supported to activate this product (so I guess the 20+ office 2K3 licenses they have are now NULL). In addition, after restarting the computer, office 2013 came back from the dead and it's 2013 that opens up when I click on any office icon.

    Seriously, if I didn't know it was office I would think I had installed a virus. I had to do a system restore and start from scratch.

     

    Miguel Fra | Falcon IT Services, Miami, Fl.
    Web Site | Blog



    Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:56 PM
  • Wow, this is AWESOME, I'm trying to help a friend with a small business project as I have been doing IT work for 20'ish years and looking for details on SBS 2003 and Outlook 2013.

    You guys, the whole lot of you sound like a bunch of 5 year olds.  

    Essentially the fact that there is not updated info or response from Microsoft in any area pertaining to this means that the official response, if you want to run SBS 2003 as an email server is to use a non-Microsoft mail client.  

    Apparently, Thunderbird, mail.app on your Mac, or the native email client on your Google device is what they want you to use........

    Saturday, February 01, 2014 5:05 AM
  • Hi..

    It seems some of you guys do not really understand of what BayTree means.

    His customer in 2008 has "a brand new server" and bought SBS2003, when SBS 2008 has not released yet.

    Got this point ?

    OK..let's continue...

    Right now, they need to purchase a new MS Office, which is currently available version is 2013, since 2010 has been discontinued.

    It seems they only have a retail/OEM license that don't have an option to downgrade and not an Volume license that has this option.

    That is really make sense, when customer expected a longer service since the last time they did a purchase is 5 years ago.

    Good Day Gentlements !

    Saturday, February 22, 2014 3:55 AM
  • "That is really make sense, when customer expected a longer service since the last time they did a purchase is 5 years ago."

    Your customer assumed and made a huge error. They should have done their homework before they bought it. They could have called the free Microsoft sales support center at any time and they would have been able to clarify the support options. They could have called any MS partner and had them clarify. They could have even (gasp) actually bothered to look on Microsoft's own support and lifecycle web site (which has been around since at LEAST 2000 and found their own answer). There is no excuse at all for this customer. Period. End. Of. Story. They assumed - and they blew it big time - and all the whining, begging, and crying won't bring their (now) 14-year old technology back into a supported framework. If Microsoft isn't giving XP users support - you're SOL baby.

    If you feel they have a good case or something in writing, then I suggest they take Microsoft to court over this - perhaps you will win - and the customer can start enjoying their SBS 2003 servers all over again with all the latest software being fully supported. If Microsoft has truly hosed them over, then perhaps your customer will win MILLIONS in damages too! Yeah...that's the ticket - sue, baby, sue!  Good luck with that. And if some consultant promised them that this was to be supported - and they have it in writing - then why don't they sue their consultant too and get him/her to pay for the absolute mess they've gotten themselves into? That person obviously has caused a huge disaster for this customer that, again, could have been easily avoided if "assumptions" had not been made.

    Or, you could just get over it and suck it up as a huge error in judgement - which it apparently was. Move onto something else. Seriously Google Docs is a great option - why don't you move them to that and stop this whining over something that has been dead and buried for some time now.


    • Edited by ABCFED Monday, February 24, 2014 10:18 PM
    Monday, February 24, 2014 10:11 PM
  • Confused authors like ABCFED defend Microsoft on "legal grounds", while those sharing my rational perspective fail to explain well enough that this is not "legal". Legal is a lowest common denominator. Instead, this is about marketplace.

    This issue is about intentional choices by Microsoft to remove compatibility of new products like Office 2013 and Win 8 with their old reliable offerings like Outlook 2003 and Exchange 2003, and then stop selling other tools that are compatible at strategic points are well.

    Microsoft's choices are to force other sales, not for technical or feature improvement reasons.

    We are not talking about major components of the software; this is about minor integration libraries already written and simple to maintain. This point is vital, and misrepresented by advocates ranting about TOS and product life cycles.

    As with XP, Server 2003 (and Exchange) is a very solid product. Microsoft has failed selling its newer and often inferior and/or hard to upgrade to releases. From the botched implementation of the great idea of UAC (just factors more poorly done than SELinux), to the failed attempt to force a phone/tablet touch screen interface into the workplace desktop, now failing to provide an easy and modular upgrade path from Office and Exchange 2003, while forcing it, is just one more reason they have to resort to non-market solutions to sales.

    Failing to find a profitable enough role following solid releases they now are resorting to strong arm tactics to force sales. Further, their timed releases have often aggravated these issues. Big white elephants will do this sometimes.

    Yes, Microsoft is completely legally and ethically entitled to this strategy. Who cares?

    We are entitled complain to encourage change (improvement of Microsoft as a vendor), or, if possible select another solution. And this is the place to do that. Answers about legality and required life cycles are tangential hogwash. Quick side notation of them is perhaps appropriate, but repeated beating those to death, as the main point, is idiotic.

    Here we raise attention to Microsoft that their marketing choice is not acceptable. In trying to strong arm, we not only complain, but further try and convince them the idea is flawed. We claim they will instead lose market share. Of course, we must remember, many of them will make a few bucks today, and buy houses in the islands, and be gone before the beast has to pay the piper. Still, we appeal to them.

    Since we almost all inherited this investment in the old Microsoft beast ourselves, we hope they would change. In that, we have every right to bitch without any legal TOS support, or life cycle support. And we don't want to hear about that crap. It is not relevant. We want work arounds (thanks MS-WarWeary), and fixes, or we are giving notice we are going away.

    Personally, given the option, and having seen most all their products in action, I choose XP, Outlook 2003, and Exchange Server 2003 as still the best tools to get office work done. I do not like the "improvements" they have made "as a whole", and they do not like that I reject their offerings.

    Still, I might have accepted their world and continued to upgrade a piece at a time like a good lemming. But, I do not choose to go this massive and painful, wholesale, route, if there is any way I can avoid it. They pressed "too hard", and they lose everything with me. That is: we are at a impasse.

    At this impasse, and in consideration of all this, the final paragraph at http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use, about Microsoft's other attempts to hold market share though advertizing rather than quality products are also relevant.
     
    Personally, if I could ditch Microsoft Windows altogether I would (and not for the over priced Apple OS X, which is these days yet another variant of Linux). However, despite having done so for many of my systems, there are still too many third party tools that are Windows dependent, and too many that continue to be made only dependent on the OS, for me to move completely to a decent Linux OS.

    But how long will this hold out, especially with these marketing choices? The white elephant still moves with mass, but each year it grows a little older and feebler, and soon it will not weigh so much. Which one of us dies first? I really don't care. But, Windows has alienated me enough that I'll decline to prop it up when I can.

    With the current maturity of OS offerings, perhaps there is no place for the behemoths any more. But, this strong arm tactic is not going to fix that better than doing the right thing instead. And, either way, death of a Wholly Mammoth is well beyond my control.

    For me, this is a great example that pulls all the small pieces together to remind me to remember that often "I can".

    And seeing no movement here on this old thread, I will move on to WVUXYZ.

    Tangent about life cycles: these are not static things, and cycles early in a product line's life are not indicative of proper operation  when into maturity (a 20+ year old OS). Microsoft has made many choices to completely rework products without backwards compatibility concerns when they had real world solutions in hand that they should have continued to improve. Despite being primarily a business tool, they chased glitz, and often blew off support for obvious upgrade paths. Relevant is that reinstall and reboot are far too frequent mantras. The work we do today has trivial logical variation from that in XP, and Office 2000, and any upgrade should be seamless from any version to the current. So, I will not let their poor choices, which I will claim were short term vision choices that did not help them like they think it did, dictate my evaluation of the product lines as a whole. I judge them on what they could do today, and continuing to provide a simple integration from Outlook 2013 to their own product Exchange 2003 is trivial. Do that, and I'd stuck wholesale with their offerings while I worked to upgrade systems when I could - but instead I will struggle with the minimal I can do to get by and seek out alternatives. Come to think of it: guess that is why I am still at XP and 2003 products, showing this issue is not "new" for them, and that they've finally just put the final straw on my back instead of helping me. Was I ever given a clean and simple upgrade from XP or 2003? No.

    • Edited by csmwww Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:54 PM
    Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:41 PM
  • Hello,

    yes, Microsoft Support a good 10 years of top quality Service but in this case for Outlook 2003 included with SBS 2003 cals but not after April 2014(Exchange Server 2003 end Support). now we hhave Outlook 2013 and is not compatible with Exchange Server 2003.

    you can purchase Outlook 2013 in volume licensing than downgrade to Outlook 2010 or 2007 for compatibility with Exchange Server 2003.

    thanks

    diramoh

    Friday, May 30, 2014 12:57 PM
  • And now, for adding Fun to Glory:

    I'm, reading my mail from OWA2003, since Outlook2013 won't work on Exchange2003. But the new Explorer 11 doesn't offer the Compatibility options as they did before, so now my "extended" Explorer functions regarding the OWA Microsoft mail are down the drain as well.

    Microsoft is really working hard to have customers move away. My new server will definitely be a Linux one. In fact, it already is. The only step left is moving away from Exchange at all.

    Any temp workaround the get Explorer 11 to do proper Explorer 7 compatibility, without manually having to reset the F12 "identification string" to "Explorer 7" again and again?


    Monday, September 15, 2014 9:04 AM