Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Microsoft IT

First Look at Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Beta 274

snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller takes a first look at Microsoft's Exchange Server 2010 Beta, noting several usability, reliability, and compliance improvements over Exchange 2007. Top among Exchange 2010's new features are OWA support for Firefox 3 and Safari 3; improved storage reliability; conversation views; mail federation between trusted companies; and MailTips, a sort of Google Mail Goggles for the corporate environment. 'Database availability groups give you redundant mail stores with continuous replication; database-level failover gives you automatic recovery. I/O optimizations make Exchange less "bursty" and better suited to desktop-class SATA drives; JBOD support lets you concatenate disks rather than stripe them into a redundant array.' Exchange 2010 will, however, require shops to upgrade to Windows Server 2008, as support for Windows Server 2003 has been dropped. Microsoft will release technical previews of other products in the suite, including Office 2010, SharePoint Server 2010, Visio 2010, and Project 2010, in the third calendar quarter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Look at Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Beta

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:25PM (#27587403) Journal
    I found this part of the review especially helpful:

    The invoice for this baby is pretty small compared to your normal MS Exchange Server, it's only 1. But that's not in dollars, that's in first born children. So I'm going to throw out a few strategies for coping with this.

    • Just squeeze one out with your wife/prostitute to get it out of the way. ProTip: don't waste money on shots or clothing, a transport blanket will do. Usually you you can convince your wife that the first one is like a test run anyway.
    • Order one of those adopted kids from some other country. Throw some cheap makeup on them to match your ethnicity, pick up some false documents and practice watering up your eyes for when you have to push the kid across a long empty room to Steve Ballmer waiting with a pair of handcuffs. They'll be slightly better off indentured to Microsoft than whatever country they came from anyway.
    • Shaft them and never have kids. This is probably the option that will come naturally to most software folks. Get a vasectomy, abstain, do whatever it takes. There's no clause against this in the licensing agreement I read--yet.

    So, like pretending you're a college student, starving African or university staff to get cheap editions of Exchange 2007, there are ways to acquired 2010 at a relatively low cost and I hope this helps you cope with the extreme cost of owning Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 for your enterprise business.

    Sure the costs don't stop there, you need to upgrade to Windows Server 2008 to use it and there are a few more things you'll need to upgrade if you want to keep the same functionality you have now ... but that's just the unspoken rule.

  • by mbourgon ( 186257 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:28PM (#27587453) Homepage

    What database engine is it using, and can we access it via SQL?

    • dBase II. HAHAHAHAno.
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:42PM (#27587603) Homepage


      MSFT is still retarded that way.

      i would KILL to be able to data-mine the email in the company with a SQL script.

      "here you are sir, 23 people in the office are boinking your Executive assistant."

    • by sakdoctor ( 1087155 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:51PM (#27587731) Homepage

      I've never used Microsoft Exchange Server in my life. Mostly because I'm more from a hippy FOSS type company.

      Having read the Microsoft marketing crap, then the wikipedia article for a more neutral POV, I don't get it.
      What is special about "electronic mail, calendaring, contacts and tasks; support for mobile and web-based access to information; and support for data storage."

      I often hear exchange server quoted as THE reason why some companies can't diversify their software from Microsoft, but that lot doesn't sound too compelling to me.

      • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:56PM (#27587811) Homepage

        Because most companies dont want to hire competent EMail admins. Any of the MCSE monkeys can administer the Exchange server. No they cant administer it correctly but they can administer it. You really do need a competent email admin staoff to use exchange, but it's not as daunting as the FOSS or other options out there to windows It staff.

        I also dont understand the love affair with outlook, It's simply that some PHB's hate change and they used Exchange as the killing point to stop OSS infiltration.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:57PM (#27588509)

          I agree with your point, but must say that your abrasive tone makes this AC understand why IT folks get such a bad rap. It's similar to why people dislike police so much. I consider myself a "competent" e-mail admin, but the several Exchange servers I administer only constitute about 3% of the servers I am responsible for, so I don't really have time to focus on them as much as I would like.

        • by Kamokazi ( 1080091 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:58PM (#27588529)

          I was able to set up a working Exchange 2007 server in 2 days. I had never configured an e-mail server before. I'm not even an MCSA (well MCTS woudl be the new name for it)....really only about halfway to it.

          So it's even easier than you say it is :-) But you are absolutely need a competent admin to do it right (I know I sure as hell didn't do it was just a test box)...they don't necessarily have to be an "E-mail Admin" to do it right, they just need to be competent enough to follow best practice guidelines (and obviously have a basic understanding of how e-mail works...any of your 'MCSE monkeys' should have that).

          And that is a big part of why Exchange's easily administered, and it has features that nothing else offers on an equivalent level.

          Also keep in mind that it's not just the PHB's being resistant to change that stops's the fact that Microsoft does a good job of making sure that their stuff integrates with eachother very well (and they don't exactly go out of their way to make sure other stuff can integrate with their products). The reason Exchange was so easy to get up and running for me is due in large part to Active Directory integration, and ISA Server 2006 is basically preconfigured to allow an Exchange server the proper access just by telling it the IP address.

          • by V!NCENT ( 1105021 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @05:52PM (#27591663)
            The problem with Microsoft products is that everybody can set it up, but almost no-one that does that knows how to configure it the right way. Defaults? Rofl...
        • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @04:07PM (#27590111) Homepage

          Sorry, but really, you're wrong. I'd love to believe you, because then we could all just drop Exchange and everything would be good. What you're saying may contribute to Exchange's place in the corporate world, but it's not the complete answer.

          But show me another email package that provides all the same things. Integrated email, contacts, calendar, the ability to send/receive meeting invites, role delegation, public folders, support for mobile devices (w/push and remote wipe), single sign-on, advanced AJAX web client as well as desktop client... I'm missing some things. Those are just the major features off the top of my head.

          Oh, right, you're going to tell me about Zimbra and Scalix, except those don't seem to work as well as FOSS people claim, and besides not all of the components are FOSS. Or you're going to post something about some package that no one has ever heard of, but you'll swear it's great. When I investigate, it'll turn out to be some not-really FOSS package that doesn't work at all and has only been in development for 2 months. Or you'll tell me, "I don't care about your features," in which case, great, that's why you can use a FOSS alternative and the rest of us can't.

          Sorry, I need a trustworthy and functioning alternative from a major vendor (who I can safely assume will exist in 2 years). Maybe Apple will be a contender once Snow Leopard comes out, but your IMAP/POP3 server isn't really in the same class of product.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by trawg ( 308495 )

            You are spot on. We recently evaluated Zimbra; it's good, but a) it's not all OSS (the fucking Outlook connector, dammit, is a must have) and b) it's a bit fiddly sometimes.

            I've tested a stack of different calendaring apps and have found them all inferior to Outlook in almost every respect. It's just so easy to use. I'm trying really, really hard to prevent us going to Exchange, but I'm running out of reasons.

            I'm really, really hoping Thunderbird 3.0 / Sunbird 1.0 will make an impact here. If there's one ma

      • by alen ( 225700 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:03PM (#27587891)

        if you have an iphone or winmo you can point your phone to a corporate email server and it will download all your email into the phone as long as you have a signal. and the IT department can manage all the phones remotely.

        say your hippy marketing exec loses his or her iphone and it has all kinds of data on it. the IT people can just wipe it remotely not caring where it is.

        say you have to keep all email for at least 7 years but you don't want it in anyone's mailbox. right now you have to buy a third party product. Exchange 2010 integrates it.

        say you want failover to another city with all your company's email there. Exchange 2007 and later.

        Even the FOSS Exhcange clones don't come close. For a medium to large business it's cheaper to buy Exchange with all the features than pay for add on software and more people to admin it

      • by somersault ( 912633 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:18PM (#27588095) Homepage Journal

        support for mobile .. access

        Bingo. This is the reason that we haven't moved away from Exchange. Windows Mobile connected to Exchange with DirectPUSH is a great combination for mobile users.. you can synchronise all your contacts, calendar, tasks and email with Exchange remotely. Email actually arrives on the mobiles a second or two before showing up in Outlook. Our Exchange server would be replaceable if it weren't for this. I almost replaced it with OpenExchange until I found out about this feature, which has now become essential to a lot of our sales team. If the blackberry network (and devices) weren't so shit then maybe I'd reconsider (the number of times I used to have our blackberry users blaming me for email not working when in fact it was the blackberry network, something which I have no control over.. eurghh..). There is a lot of room for a nice FOSS email client/server product on an open mobile platform..

      • Email and calendaring are hard when you get down to the nitty-gritty.

      • by drsmithy ( 35869 ) <drsmithy@gm a i l . c om> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @02:19PM (#27588771)

        What is special about "electronic mail, calendaring, contacts and tasks; support for mobile and web-based access to information; and support for data storage."

        Not having to run a dozen different, barely interoperable end-user applications to achieve it.

    • I've always wondered why email servers don't use database servers to store the email. It seems like an obvious idea. Personally, I think that even personal email clients should employ this type of technology. If everything was indexed, it would make search the email so much easier. Also, with SQL access, the could be many plugins for your mail client that would increase the value of the product.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mcmonkey ( 96054 )

        I've always wondered why email servers don't use database servers to store the email.

        They do. They just don't expose their inner database.

        Also, with SQL access, the could be many plugins for your mail client that would increase the value of the product.

        And this is why. Your email server vendor does not want to hear from you when your 3rd party plugin has made your email database FUBAR. Or when some hotshot admin unleashes a cascade of table scans and no one can get their email.

        Seriously. Have y

  • JBOD support lets you concatenate disks rather than stripe them into a redundant array.'

    Both of these options seem like terrible ideas to me if you care at all about your data.
  • Blah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slaker ( 53818 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:38PM (#27587551)

    I kind of like it when my mail server is, you know, just a mail server. Call me a nut but SMTP + IMAP do everything I need.

    • Re:Blah (Score:5, Informative)

      by alen ( 225700 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:42PM (#27587605)

      there are these entities called corporations/companies. they are required to follow a lot of laws and in some cases retain all communications for many years. Exchange makes this easy because it centralizes everything for easier management.

      2010 looks more like 2007 R2. Same engine but more features and support for it's new ActiveSync partners, Google and Apple.

      the archiving and legal features look nice. right now you have to buy add on products from EMC and other companies. Integrating the SOX features into Exchange will save customers a lot of money.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ender81b ( 520454 )

        The archiving feature alone really fixes a gap in Exchange server. Say what you will, but it's ridiculous that it doesn't have any archiving abilities (and no, localto workstation archiving doesn't count) that even remotely compare to notes.

        • Re:Blah (Score:4, Informative)

          by TheCabal ( 215908 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:32PM (#27588229) Journal

          Exchange has had support for mailbox journaling for a while now. It's not a new feature. Maybe in 2010, they just prettied up the process.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ender81b ( 520454 )

            Mailbox journaling is not archiving.

            Here is what most people mean by archiving. On notes (and now exchange) there's a server side policy/program that runs and moves mail that meets a defined criteria (say.. mail that is over 6 months old) and copies them to a new mail file. The user's can then access their archive from inside the client or via the web by clicking on a link or something and it takes them right to it.

            It's really nice from a system administration perspective as it keeps mail file sizes down (i

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

        there are these entities called corporations/companies. they are required to follow a lot of laws and in some cases retain all communications for many years. Exchange makes this easy because it centralizes everything for easier management.

        So does a server with SMTP+POP+IMAP+Jabber.

        SOX requires you to disclose certain things, and to have policies in place to allow you to disclose certain other things on demand. In terms of SOX compliance, there are no serious barriers in your way when rolling a solution from FoSS; indeed, such a solution is provided for you turnkey if you like, by purchasing it from Red Hat or perhaps from IBM.

        • by alen ( 225700 )

          do the FOSS solutions include failover, replication, archiving, integration with your company's telephone system and a long list of other features?

          say you are a 5000 person company and NYC loses electricity again and you have 3000 people in other states that still need to work. with exchange 2007 and later you replicate your mail to a standby server.

          It's like the IPhone. the basic parts of a phone are mature like calling, address book, voice mail, etc. it's the apps that make the iphone a killer phone

          same t

          • do the FOSS solutions include failover, replication, archiving, integration with your company's telephone system and a long list of other features?


            if there is a disaster than POP and IMAP are useless and can result in lost data.

            If there is a disaster, you're fucked, because you're stupid. POP and IMAP are protocols. Bad implementations lead to lost data.

            • by alen ( 225700 )

              so which FOSS solution includes all the legal features, DR, and mobile functionality? with Exchange you just point your phone or blackberry to your mailbox and you've got mail. someone loses his phone, you just wipe it remotely over the cell phone network

              • What cell phon that supports exchange doesn't include a web browser to get to a webmail account?
                • Because using the web on a cell phone is SO EASY compared to a built in messaging/calendaring application.

              • by Super_Z ( 756391 )
                OSS solutions like Zimbra, eGroupware, Open-Xchange, SOGo and Citadel all do most of the stuff Exchange does (except the MAPI part). AFAIK none of them has built-in site failover functionality but most of them support a HA setup.
        • Re:Blah (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:52PM (#27588463)

          This kind of misses the point. In many cases of Microsoft products, you could weave and configure together a bunch of FOSS applications to do the same thing. But then you'd have a custom solution that only your now-very-valuable admin understands. On the other hand, Exchange is a one stop shop for all this stuff, and the admins are pretty much interchangeable, since the product is the same.

          Mail servers for large corporations are not just, well, mail servers. For a 200 person shop, full Exchange is definitely overkill (which is why there's multiple versions you can buy). For a 300K person company, it worth the cost.

    • Re:Blah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RightSaidFred99 ( 874576 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:47PM (#27587677)

      Yeah, but you're not a large corporation. Exchange does all kinds of crazy shit that's nice to have in a very large environment. Calendaring, extreme scalability, integration with other systems, mobile messaging integration, spam filtering, encryption support, voicemail integration, auditing compliance. etc... and etc... and etc...

      Exchange does a _whole_ lot of shit and integrates with other products that do a whole lot of other shit.

      So if you have 50 employees and 40 computers, Exchange might be overkill. If you have 40,000 employees, it might be exactly what you need.

      • Re:Blah (Score:4, Insightful)

        by adarn ( 582480 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:59PM (#27587851)

        People underestimate how important Exchange is.

        The argument is always how Office is the real lynchpin and that if only a compatible document suite like Google docs or OpenOffice got a foothold Microsoft would be crushed but Outlook/Exchange is the REAL barrier to entry.

        I work at a call center. EVERY corporate employee who calls me is using Outlook except the 1% of poor souls stuck with Lotus Notes and Domino.

        Business relies on Outlook/Exchange.

      • by Super_Z ( 756391 )
        As an aside, Companies that want extreme scalability go for products like Sun JES, CriticalPath Memova or simply Postfix/Cyrus/Apache/WebDAV. When you pass 500.000 users, you dont want a server that does "all kinds of crazy shit" - you want something that is rugged and easy to debug :-)
    • I get an invite for a meeting and click "accept". (first and only mouseclick) It auto-syncs to my phone and 15 mins before the meeting, I get reminded of topic and room number. Ever tried that with SMTP?
      Most big corporations will pump their outgoing mail through a real SMTP server before letting it loose on the net, and use a real SMTP to filter the incomming turdstream before it is allowed to hit Exchange though. And as far as standard complience goes, well I can send and receive VCards and VCals in
      • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:36PM (#27588267) Journal
        I'm fairly sure (or, SOGO, at least) supports everything you've described, and does so via open protocols like CalDAV, IMAP, SMTP, LDAP, and so on.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mlts ( 1038732 ) *

        Exchange has evolved a lot. Take Exchange 2007 for example. On an internet-facing server, it is quite easy to enable anti-spam rules. Even better, they get updated weekly directly from MS. You can also add your favorite antivirus utility (you will end up paying "enterprise prices for it) to scan incoming and outgoing mail for CYA reasons. You also can add server to server connectors between companies so E-mail between your company and a customer never touches the Internet in the clear.

        There is one thin

  • by rodrigoandrade ( 713371 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:40PM (#27587581)
    Oh nevermind :-)
  • No mention of junk mail in the article. I'm still waiting for Bill to deliver on his promise of a 'spam free world.'

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by theSpitzer ( 1504349 )
      Get yourself a barracuda or two. I know our College's barracudas blocked 12 million emails last year and only let 2.5 million (ideally, legit ones) through. And we STILL get spam in our inboxefrom time-to-time. Awfully hard to catch when they embed their garbage in images as opposed to text.
      • Yup, they're great. Email to my editor with my latest article? Clearly spam - in the bin with it. Another email from a journal telling me a paper had been accepted? Spam, throw it away.

        If your recipient is using Barracuda, send them an IM to let them know you've got an email, just to be on the safe side.

  • by iamhigh ( 1252742 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:50PM (#27587717)
    His first point is you can use it with FF and Safari. Nice, but not a really big deal to most admins.

    Then his second favorite feature is that you can do database level real time replication - you know, without having to know about all that REALLY hard stuff, like RAID, or what this SCSI crap is, or backups.
    • by rob1980 ( 941751 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:41PM (#27588323)
      His first point is you can use it with FF and Safari. Nice, but not a really big deal to most admins.

      For sysadmins who want their users to stick with Firefox or something else not named Internet Explorer, an improvement to OWA may not be a huge deal but it's still nice. OWA on alternative browsers blows pretty hard. It works, but it blows.
  • so we're (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nimbius ( 983462 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:55PM (#27587801) Homepage

    bundling the operating system? thats what it sounds like if the OS is a requirement....bad move on the part of redmond to make this mandatory in a recession.

    this is the part where customers ask the question: if linux users dont have to install a new OS to get the latest mailserver/groupware...why the hell do i???

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If you want what Microsoft offers, you have to play by their rules. If the product is good and the rules are not onerous, then there's no problem. Proprietary software, despite its drawbacks, has been a useful and successful means for delivering value for over 50 years.

      On the other hand, if the product is lacking and/or the rules are onerous, then you need to go with another vendor.

      As much as I love a chance to bash Microsoft, I really don't see this as being an "onerous" requirement, especially since it

      • I imagine dropping another thousand (or whatever a Windows Server license costs these days) to upgrade the OS is pocket change in comparison to the Exchange licensing and dedicated hardware and support personnel you need to run the thing.

        Sure, if training your employees on the new OS were free.

  • Finally. Sheesh. No reason why this couldn't have been implemented years ago instead of relegating them to OWA Lite.
    • I saw OWA when it first came out. It was built with ActiveX. So there couldn't be FF or Safari support until it was completely rewritten. And then I'm sure there were compatibility issues as they focused on IE 6 support and less on standards.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      Finally. Sheesh. No reason why this couldn't have been implemented years ago instead of relegating them to OWA Lite.

      Yeah, no reason except that it's just one more reason why your desktops don't have to run Windows...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FunkyELF ( 609131 )
      I use OWA with FireFox on Linux.
      Its not all that rich but it works just fine. Don't know what this is all about.
      Are they going to make the experience the same for both IE and FireFox?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by JCSoRocks ( 1142053 )
        The FF experience sucks in comparison to IE. The OWA experience is almost exactly like the application itself when you're using IE. In FF it's more like a bad version of Gmail. Sadly I'm forced to use IE for my banking and for OWA. That's it. I'm actually excited to see FF support coming down the road.
  • Decent OWA?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nine-times ( 778537 ) <> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:00PM (#27587857) Homepage

    Wow, it's kind of hard to believe, but there's actually something in this update that sounds like it'd be helpful. I think it's the first update to a Microsoft product in... I don't know... about 8-9 years where the update actually offers me something new that would actually be useful for me.

    For those who don't already know, the webmail that is built in to Exchange is actually fairly good, and is one of the early web applications to actually use something like AJAX to give you the feeling of using a desktop application. The only problem is that it has only ever really supported IE, and if you use any other browser, it reverted to a crappy version which was... ok. Not really very good, but yes, it worked.

    Anyway, it's possible that I may consider buying an upgrade someday!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by et764 ( 837202 )

      For those who don't already know, the webmail that is built in to Exchange is actually fairly good, and is one of the early web applications to actually use something like AJAX to give you the feeling of using a desktop application.

      I think OWA (or whatever it was called at the time) was actually the first AJAX application. A while back, I was talking with someone from the Exchange team, and he said the team developed the XmlHttpRequest object that makes AJAX possible for the purposes of making OWA.

      Unfortunately for Microsoft, no one really noticed until Google made GMail.

    • Re:Decent OWA?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by benjymouse ( 756774 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @02:37PM (#27588985)

      ..., and is one of the early web applications to actually use something like AJAX to give you the feeling of using a desktop application.

      More aptly, is was THE first AJAX application. It doesn't get earlier than that.

      This was years before it got its spiffy name. XmlHttpRequest (the linchpin in AJAX) was invented by Microsofts email client team to support Outlook Web Access. Being invented for IE it was (and still is AFAIK) a COM object which could be created from JavaScript in the browser. Mozilla later copied the idea and made XmlHttpRequest a first class citizen, but kept the name. The rest is history.

  • by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:02PM (#27587879) Journal

    Exchange Server 2007 gave the bird to Thunderbird. Will Server 2010 support Thunderbird or Seamonkey? Or will Linux desktops be second class citizens in an Exchange Server corporate setup?

    That's the only feature of interest to me...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ejdmoo ( 193585 )

      Exchange works great with IMAP, even if it doesn't exactly follow the delete/expunge model of deletion (but then again, neither does Gmail).

      I've used Thunderbird with Exchange 2007 with no problems.

      • by jkrise ( 535370 )

        I've used Thunderbird with Exchange 2007 with no problems.

        I don't believe this. With Thunderbird, Exchange 2007 simply refuses to work at all. The reason I tried using Thunderbird was to compose HTML mail on Linux desktops, and it was a miserable failure. OWA Lite is a very poor buggy cousin of OWA which works even on IE6, but not on FF3!

    • by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:14PM (#27588039)
      Exchange works with any IMAP email client, but the email admins need to manually enable IMAP on the Exchange server. The question I ask is, "Will Thunderbird 4 or SeaMonkey 3 support Exchange's default MAPI protocol?" That way, Mozilla email clients can work with any Exchange server. Then individual users can easily migrate away from Outlook without the prior consent of the email admins.
      • by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

        When MS publishes the whole MAPI spec in a useful way they will.

      • by alen ( 225700 )

        maybe the old MAPI versions. every product cycle MS improves MAPI and adds more features

  • JBOD support lets you concatenate disks rather than stripe them into a redundant array

    Uh, WHAT!? Seriously, Microsoft? You're selling concatenation as a feature?

    Anyone who thinks concatenation is a good thing, much less better than striping, needs to have whatever certifications they bought revoked.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TopSpin ( 753 ) *

      Anyone who thinks concatenation is a good thing, much less better than striping...

      Concatenation, by itself, would certainly be unwise. I'll give Exchange admins the benefit of the doubt and assume this "concatenation" is in addition to whatever redundancy features are provided.

      From the story:

      JBOD support lets you concatenate disks rather than stripe them into a redundant array

      I find that statement confusing. Why is Exchange, a mail server/collaboration platform/etc., managing storage devices? Is the story conflating Windows Server 2008 features with Exchange, or is Exchange directly responsible for storage devices (like Oracle ASM)?

    • by Sandbags ( 964742 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:39PM (#27588311) Journal

      You misread... That's for the REPLICATED copy. i.e. You keep your live database on RAID 1/0, but you keep the realtime replicated copy on JBOD. With EXCH 2007 microsoft began (for very good reasons) recomending DAS instead of SAN (due to application and database high availablility features of Exchange 2007). Now, half of your DAS modular array units don't require expensive controllers, further reducing your costs without detracting from availability. Since the server fron end no longer needs to be a microsoft Cluster as well, Enterprise Server is no longer a requirement either.

      We recently deployed a 20K user solution under Exch2007. We lobied for a modular extensible DAS storage solution, but instead upper management insisted on big iron SAN chassis (2 of them). We spent $450K on disks where we could have spent less than 100K and had the same performance and reliability simply because upper management (and apparently you) have not read or do not understand the new database architecture proposed in Exchange 2007. 2010 improves upon that by removing some server side hurdles while maintaining the same data reliablity.

      You're keeping 2-3 local, active, asynchronously replicated (with real time log rollback) copies of your exchange system, with 30 second or less automatic failover that does not disconnect users in the process. Why keep them all on RAID 10 if you can simply fail from one over to the other? The only reason to keep any 1 of them on RAID 10 is simply to keep from failing over the first time! (and you'll recover and be back on the RAID 10 in 24-48 hours and you still have redundancy in log shipping, offsite server replication, and traditional backups to supplement that, all without clusters!

  • by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) <> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:18PM (#27588091) Homepage Journal

    You can setup rules for phone calls. Freaking awesome.

    if (Status == b0rking_hot_secretary)
        if (caller.phonenumber == contacts.wife.phonenumber)
        else if (caller.phonenumber == contacts.otherHotSecretary.phoneumber)

    But in all seriousness, it'll be nice to have a rule that auto-directs calls to my cell when I'm out of the office.


  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:21PM (#27588115) Homepage Journal

    I joined an MS consultancy in 1998 because they were supposedly the foremost developers in NYC of MS Exchange applications. Once I settled in, they told me they were expert enough in Exchange as a platform to know never to develop any apps on it, because it was so awful to develop for and to support. A piece of crap. I've never seen any evidence since then that Exchange got any better as an app platform.

    Any clue as to whether the 2010 version will be any better? If it were, I'd expect Outlook/Exchange to take over the Internet. But that was possible over a decade ago, and MS totally blew it since then.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheCabal ( 215908 )

      Big difference between Exchange 5 and Exchange of today. I've had issues with Exchange 5.5 servers and their quirkiness. I've also been running Exchange 2003 clusters that have been absolutely rock solid and almost completely bulletproof.

      • I'm not talking about their stability in their "out of the box" featureset operation. I'm talking about APIs, programmability, etc, as an app platform. I don't see many Exchange apps built on an Exchange platform, so I'm guessing everyone realized it wasn't really an app platform, despite MS pitching it to developers that way.

  • MAPI/CDO (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wandazulu ( 265281 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:28PM (#27588189)

    These were depreciated in Exchange07, and I'm presuming that they're still depreciated, but not altogether gone (in 07 you had to install them manually).

    There's still a lot (okay, well, some) that depends on MAPI and CDO being available in Exchange.

    • by Petersko ( 564140 )
      "These were depreciated in Exchange07, and I'm presuming that they're still depreciated...i>

      Yeah, I hear MAPI and CDO lose 40% of their value the first time you use them. Never treat them as an investment.
    • Re:MAPI/CDO (Score:4, Informative)

      by turbine216 ( 458014 ) <> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @03:12PM (#27589417)
      I think you've muddled the MAPI client and MAPI protocol together, so i'll clarify for you: MAPI as a client access method (ie the MAPI protocol) is built-in, and turned on by default. For Outlook clients who are on the same network as your Mailbox server(s), this is the default connection method. The MAPI client bits, however, are not included in Exchange server anymore. Really the only thing that i've found that this affects is the ability to export mail to a PST when working directly on a mailbox server. It's been replaced by a number of powershell commands (export-mailbox, import-mailbox), and can still be done on workstations with Outlook installed (because the MAPI client bits are part of Outlook).
  • by Electric Eye ( 5518 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @02:08PM (#27588657)

    Honestly. The adoption rate of Exchange 2007 was LOW and slow. Even when SP1 was released (after almost a year delay, btw), we're still stuck with this shitty command line interface that USED to be GUI to do all sorts of fun admin things in. It's a royal PITA to administer. How about an SP2 that will fix seemingly dead issues like OWA support for other browsers, etc? If MS thinks we and other companies that just spent thousands of dollars on the "bleeding edge" 2007 are going to pony up for 2010, they've got a surprise waiting. This is incrtedibly insulting.

    I guess Ballmer realized how shitty everything was the company has done over the past 2-3 years since he took over and decided to move on.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

      Moving to command line sounds like doing it right, someone at MS must have wised up. Try automating stuff like real admins do.

  • by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @03:22PM (#27589513) Homepage Journal
    One of the most wonderful things about Exchange is how they artificially limit the size of the message store [] in order to get you to buy the "enterprise" version.

    Why pay megabucks for that limitation when others give you 256 TB or more? []

It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's