Outlook 2013 does not support Exchange 2003

When Microsoft finally pulled the covers back on Office 2013, they were also announcing at the same time the end of support for several platforms. We have already highlighted that Office 2013 will not support XP or Vista, but we are also now seeing that Exchange 2003 will no longer be supported.

Exchange 2003 was released in September of 2003 which means that the platform is nearly ten years old, so it is not surprising that Microsoft has decided to drop support for the aging platform. Microsoft is known for its legacy support of its own platforms but the company does have to draw the line somewhere. If the company is forced to support its products forever, the platforms become bloated and overhead costs skyrocket.

If you are on 2003, it is best to upgrade at this point. Seeing how old the platform is, there are tons of new features in the newer editions of Exchange and the security and stability updates are worth the price of entry.

The removal of support is not all that surprising either. When Microsoft updates their Office platform, they typically drop support for one version of Exchange; Outlook 2010 did not support Exchange 2000.

If you missed the all the announcement yesterday around Office 2013, you can find them all here

Source: Microsoft Answers

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Phone 8 to get screenshot feature?

Next Story

Battlefield 4 beta access with Warfighter pre-order

26 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

For the record, Exchange 2003 SP2 was part of SBS2003 R2 (2nd release) and was the latest version of SBS up until 2008. Two of our offices bought brand new Dell servers with the SBS2k3 R2 systems in 2007Q3. And MS extended support ends in April 2014. Security wise, the systems are rock solid.... so much for disinformation.

"good" .. "about time" .. etc...not a one of you runs a business of any significance ... or runs the it of a major corporation......fools

rhianntp said,
"good" .. "about time" .. etc...not a one of you runs a business of any significance ... or runs the it of a major corporation......fools

at some point software is dead... exchange 2003 is almost 10 years old, eventually it will not be supported at all by MS, and at that point you are in trouble is something breaks... its almost like the people limping along on Nortel phone systems, when Nortel is dead.. with the thinking "I'll fix it when it breaks" instead of taking the transition period to a system like Avaya which has transitions in place for the time... and in the future finding out there is no upgrade path because you waited to long.....

neufuse said,

at some point software is dead... exchange 2003 is almost 10 years old, eventually it will not be supported at all by MS, and at that point you are in trouble is something breaks... its almost like the people limping along on Nortel phone systems, when Nortel is dead.. with the thinking "I'll fix it when it breaks" instead of taking the transition period to a system like Avaya which has transitions in place for the time... and in the future finding out there is no upgrade path because you waited to long.....

I completely dig what you are saying but my company uses old nortel phone systems and we have an exchange 2003 server running a great deal of email. We can replace a complete nortel phone system for a few hundred dollars (I've gotten refurbed 8x24's for as low as $399) as opposed to how much for an avaya system to do the same thing. As far as the people who would be paying for a new set of exchange licenses are concerned the expense is for the same thing. So.... all of the technical stuff is really in the back seat when the decision gets made. Money hates IT because you can't easily show a positive on a ledger in alot of businesses. Usually the best you can quantify is a lack of negatives.

the420kid said,
exchange is a mess. when we took our companies email to google enterprise apps it was the greatest day of my life.

Is that because by switching you didn't have to administer the system anymore? I knew nothing about exchange in in the period of a few hours, I was able to set up my own AD+EX 2010 system at home. It's rather easy to maintain.

SirEvan said,

Is that because by switching you didn't have to administer the system anymore? I knew nothing about exchange in in the period of a few hours, I was able to set up my own AD+EX 2010 system at home. It's rather easy to maintain.

What is an AD+ EX system?

SirEvan said,

Is that because by switching you didn't have to administer the system anymore? I knew nothing about exchange in in the period of a few hours, I was able to set up my own AD+EX 2010 system at home. It's rather easy to maintain.

It sounds like that to me. If they moved to cloud apps then who needs such a big IT department anyways? It shouldn't be the greatest day of his life at all, you could end up out of work because your "services aren't needed anymore".

the420kid said,
exchange is a mess. when we took our companies email to google enterprise apps it was the greatest day of my life.

Either the most disingenuous comment or the dumbest comment of the day.

To even compare the features of Exchange to Google Apps is a 'wow really' moment. It is like hearing someone say that getting rid of their Ferrari and getting a bicycle for cross country trips was the best day of their life.

Holy rocket scientist, batman...

Well since this isn't the first time and has been the norm I don't see the problem? Also, we're talking about a 10 year old version of Exchange. Sure I get that it's not the cheapest bit of server software out there, probably, but at some point server admins should update. If anything for the better security etc.

thealexweb said,
It is bad I've never actually see anything newer thsn Exchange 2003 in the wild xD

really? Almost everyone I've seen has moved to 2007 at least and a good bit are at 2010 now, we made the move ourselves to 2010 this past year

ahhell said,
Good. No one should still be running a 10 year old mail server.

While my clients won't really have a problem with this, this mentality can be problematic in the SMB realm. I have several client who have trouble making payroll at times, and most of them essentially live with very little budget wiggle room.

Even when we come to them and tell them or ask them to budget in equipment or software purchases long term, it often gets pushed on down the road because of other needed expenses.

Walking into a repair/manufacturing/shipping facility and telling them they need to upgrade equipment or software that works just fine as far as they are concerned while they are trying to scrounge up money to upgrade equipment far more vital to their operations is one of the stupidest things I am forced to do.

Condere said,

Walking into a repair/manufacturing/shipping facility and telling them they need to upgrade equipment or software that works just fine as far as they are concerned while they are trying to scrounge up money to upgrade equipment far more vital to their operations is one of the stupidest things I am forced to do.

Uh...then don't tell them to upgrade to office 2013? Duh. smh. If you don't want to upgrade your mail server, don't upgrade your mail client. Seems pretty 1+1 to me.

ahhell said,
Good. No one should still be running a 10 year old mail server.

What's wrong with running a 10 year old mail server? So long as it's secure and does what it's meant to do, I don't see the problem?
Upgrading for upgrading sake is pretty ****ing dumb though, do people bother to explore _ALL_ the new features (especially sys admins)? No. So it means there's loads of new features which could very well turn into huge gaping security holes.

Condere said,

While my clients won't really have a problem with this, this mentality can be problematic in the SMB realm. I have several client who have trouble making payroll at times, and most of them essentially live with very little budget wiggle room.

Even when we come to them and tell them or ask them to budget in equipment or software purchases long term, it often gets pushed on down the road because of other needed expenses.

Walking into a repair/manufacturing/shipping facility and telling them they need to upgrade equipment or software that works just fine as far as they are concerned while they are trying to scrounge up money to upgrade equipment far more vital to their operations is one of the stupidest things I am forced to do.

And these same cash strapped SMB's will be out buying the latest version of Office replacing all their 2010 installations?

TCLN Ryster said,

And these same cash strapped SMB's will be out buying the latest version of Office replacing all their 2010 installations?

To answer your question, no. However some workstations will have to be replaced as units break beyond the point of repair.

I don't think people truly understand the hodge-podge mix and match state of technology that many small to medium businesses end up in. It's not that I don't want them all running the latest and greatest, and many times they would like that too.

The reality my clients find themselves in is one that has their users using XP/Vista/Win7 PCs running Office 2003, 2007, and 2010. I guarantee in a year I will have clients who will have people in the same room doing the same job with some of them on XP and other people using Win8.

There are all sorts of reasons why people use outdated equipment, and while MS needs to make money, they need to understand reality. An example is some clients I have in NYC who by law have to access a NYC.gov website. A website that hasn't been updated in years, whom I've tried contacting them over many times, and one that will only work with older versions of Firefox 3.5 (or older) or IE6 (and older). The easiest fix I have for these clients is to leave an outdated PC running XP SP2 in a corner at their locations.

The world is black and white with A WHOLE LOTTA grey in between.

n_K said,

What's wrong with running a 10 year old mail server? So long as it's secure and does what it's meant to do, I don't see the problem?
Upgrading for upgrading sake is pretty ****ing dumb though, do people bother to explore _ALL_ the new features (especially sys admins)? No. So it means there's loads of new features which could very well turn into huge gaping security holes.

How can something be secure if it's 10 years old? In fact, it's likely to get out of lifecycle soon. If you are one of those people that want a piece of software to run forever, go open-source, but even they do updates.

Condere said,

To answer your question, no. However some workstations will have to be replaced as units break beyond the point of repair.

I don't think people truly understand the hodge-podge mix and match state of technology that many small to medium businesses end up in. It's not that I don't want them all running the latest and greatest, and many times they would like that too.

The reality my clients find themselves in is one that has their users using XP/Vista/Win7 PCs running Office 2003, 2007, and 2010. I guarantee in a year I will have clients who will have people in the same room doing the same job with some of them on XP and other people using Win8.

There are all sorts of reasons why people use outdated equipment, and while MS needs to make money, they need to understand reality. An example is some clients I have in NYC who by law have to access a NYC.gov website. A website that hasn't been updated in years, whom I've tried contacting them over many times, and one that will only work with older versions of Firefox 3.5 (or older) or IE6 (and older). The easiest fix I have for these clients is to leave an outdated PC running XP SP2 in a corner at their locations.

The world is black and white with A WHOLE LOTTA grey in between.


they could take and buy the new stuff, but the greedy owner/ceo wants that bonus to not buy its. Its all about greed. I bet his salary is triple what one of his workers is.

Condere said,
While my clients won't really have a problem with this, this mentality can be problematic in the SMB realm. I have several client who have trouble making payroll at times, and most of them essentially live with very little budget wiggle room.

Clients like that shouldn't be running Exchange on premises anymore. That's what Office 365 is for. You sell them the service and either you can invoice them or MS can.

webdev511 said,

Clients like that shouldn't be running Exchange on premises anymore. That's what Office 365 is for. You sell them the service and either you can invoice them or MS can.

Indeed. We were going to try it at my office too. Unfortunately, the powers that be have an annoying habit of cutting corners in the wrong places.

Good!! I have a few clients that are clinging to Exchange 2003 despite efforts to get them to move on. This will help.

Exchange 2003 was very good for it's day but 2007 & 2010 are much nicer.