<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on An old Exchange tip highlights feature creep and overlap ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-263304]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-263304/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-22T11:24:09-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Feature creep creates confusion]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-263304-2496326]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[In Classics Rock, I pointed out a popular Exchange  feature called Public Folders and mentioned how many of the abilities in Public Folders exist in SharePoint as well.http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/classic-tech/?p=133When it released Exchange 2007 and now with talk about the next version of Exchange, Exchange administrators are concerned this popular feature will be tossed over the side and that Microsoft will try to force march them into deploying SharePoint for collaboration.Two questions come to mind: First, do you use Public Folders in Exchange for collaboration? And B) What are some other examples of feature creep can you come up with where products wind up overlapping feature sets and causing confusion?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-263304-2496326]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[John Sheesley - TechRepublic Pro]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 12 May 2008 13:56:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

