<?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 Three reasons why our college is upgrading to Exchange Server 2010 ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754]]></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/102-319754/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-20T13:51:02-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Integration Costs Greatly Increase the Price]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3198542]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The main drawbacks are:1) Liability: If Google gets compromised and your customer's data gets compromised your customer might sue Google... but they're also pretty likely to sue you since you are the one who gave their data to Google.2) Integration/Authentication: Either you spend an arm and a leg on a SAML based integration product, or you suffer an unpleasant fate: Batch integration. Or, worse, NO integration at all--and your users can juggle passwords indefinitely. Unfortunately, Google does not (to date) support the use of ADFS for integration--so even if you're on the Microsoft Academic license (where Server Enterprise licenses are mucho-cheapo) you can't use the Identity Federation product you've already paid for.3) Disaster Recovery: Google recently announced that they had &quot;lost&quot; (unrecoverably) email for several thousand user accounts. What would happen if they &quot;lost&quot; your company's data? This is possible with your own systems, of course, but when the systems belong to YOU, you can engage in a little responsible oversight. When the servers belong to Google, you are only able to take their word for it.4) Regulatory Compliance: Google is pretty great, but don't count on any regulatory agencies your company needs to work with buying in without a fight. This will cost a considerable amount of money (in man-hours) and is part of the equation.5) Accountability: Unless your company is rich enough make a credible legal threat to Google, there simply isn't any accountability whatsoever. Good luck getting damages out of them--your &quot;user agreement&quot; doesn't provide for anything beyond a refund if they fail to deliver. What this means is, essentially, if Google screws up, YOU will bear the brunt of it.6) Their support is a joke. Non-existent would be a better label. I migrated the students of a college to Google Apps for Education. Google supports literally NOTHING, unless you can prove that their (mostly undocumented) API has a bug in it. Support is not included and, at least when I was involved with it, simply didn't exist. The make it nearly impossible to contact support, and you can't enter a ticket without giving a secret code that is only available through your web-interface.In short, it isn't as &quot;perfect&quot; as it might seem on the surface. Certainly, there are plenty of positives, but you can't just cross the cost of Email and support off your budget and move-on. Some of what you save will be burned in integration costs or support costs.Given the potential legal liabilities, hidden costs, and total lack of support from Google, my own recommendation would be to not even attempt it unless your company is SOO HUGE that you can take on Google, or so small and broke that nobody would waste their time suing you.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3198542]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[tom.marsh@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:16:08 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It is compelling if...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3198487]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...you have the mountain of cash required to integrate your existing authentication scheme to Google, then its very compelling.Otherwise, its a nightmare of non-matching passwords, batch integration, and endless support headaches over passwords. Also the joy of accounts that &quot;disappear.&quot; Oops!It isn't as &quot;cheap&quot; as the &quot;free&quot; label that Google Apps for Education has presently got slapped on it--still worth investigating, but everybody should go into it with open-eyes.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3198487]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[tom.marsh@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:49:16 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I would like to hear more reason why not outsource]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3193054]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I would like to hear more on why not to outsource. We have been debating this decision internally as well. For a global company it make more sense to go to Google. Instant translation, ease of use. Open to all mobile devices. Built in email archiving and so on. All of this makes this a very attractive option. So I would like to hear more about your argument why you made this decision VS others. For us for example server cost money housing them in the data center cost money, our own spam and virus filtering cost money, blackberry servers cost money. So outsourcing for one price with a bunch of additional features with less servers and maintenance is getting more and more appealing.So I would be interested to here more in the process you used to make this decision.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3193054]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[BOUND4DOOM]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:11:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Three reasons why our college is upgrading to Exchange Server 2010]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3192066]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Microsoft vs  Google.Finally I found a proper answer in this article :Exchange is a part of integration services.Not to many tech folks understand a complex of existing and future services Plus Google Email system failed more than four times for a few monthContrad]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3192066]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ilya.shick@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:27:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OWA mainly]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189232]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's mainly the new OWA that I'm after for a variety of reasons - mainly, Firefox support.  We have a sizeable Macintosh contingent that we want to bring to parity from a service perspective.  For us, that's important; for other, it may not make sense.On number 1, we don't have current figures, but are gathering them as a part of our planning phase in order to make sure that we properly account for storage needs under Exchange 2010.#3 - Easier said than done. I'm not going to make a bunch of policy changes without being able to give people some kind of reasonable alternative.  That's what we're working on now - 1) Getting people up to speed on the Sharepoint-based campus calendar we just finished developing; 2) Once they're on board, require them to submit event information through the calendar; 3) Configure the calendar to generate a message to campus each day with that day's activities.There's more to it than I said above.  It's not all technical.As for UM, yes, it works with our PBX. We're have a limited initial deployment on this front.  The SAN is up for replacement relatively soon, so, yes, we're taking a small risk that we'll have to wait until we can get a more robust SAN for this service.I discovered than an MWI light is more important than I thought... users really want it.  If it's reasonable to provide it, great.Scott]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189232]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Lowe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:48:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[A number of things...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189230]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[A few things to bear in mind:* Exchange 2007 doesn't do SIS on message bodies, either.* Although SIS is going away in Exchange 2010, attachments will be compressed.  Obviously, from a space perspective, non-SIS will still require additional space, though.* Fewer mailboxes per DB reduces SIS efficiency anyway.  Again, not greatly, but noticeably.Most of our mailboxes are sub-100MB with only a few in the multi-GB range.  For those users, we are going to help them reduce their mailbox sizes.We've also recently deployed and are beginning to use SharePoint as a collaboration tool.  It's already eliminated some of what would have been emailed attachments.As we move forward, we'll be implementing new policies that make it more difficult to blast large files to the entire campus.We will lower caps on max message size to help control mailbox growth.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189230]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Lowe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:40:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Really depends...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189205]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Obviously, the economics are pretty important and if you can't justify the cost, you don't do the project.Since the CA basically makes this upgrade &quot;free&quot;, we'll do it and not think too much about it.  If there was a major cash transaction involved, I doubt we'd be making the jump right now since budgets are tight.Scott]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189205]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Lowe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:20:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[A Step Further]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189048]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I would go a step further and say that this guy is somehow connected with Microsoft.  This sounds like a piece straight out of the MS play book disguised as legitimate press.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3189048]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[knoxbury]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:10:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Removal of SIS]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188902]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What are you going to do in regards to the removal of Single Instance Storage, Scott?  That is going to be a large hurdle for my company to overcome.  Once we have an e-mail storage policy in place it may not be so bad, but most at the executive level are digital pack-rats, with mailboxes over 3GB in size.What are you planning to do about it?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188902]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AstroCreep]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:38:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You're upgrading because you think the product is cool]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188922]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Not because there's a justifiable reason for it. I'm not opposed to IT decisions made for this reason, but I'd sure like to listen in when you pitch this to your financial controller.#1: Ridiculous. You have no real stats from your EMC and you're using marketing numbers from Microsoft. You're using an iSCSI array so the SATA issue isn't relevant. How in the world are you doing capacity planning if you don't know what your EXISTING Exchange box is doing to the storage array?#2: Silly. So you get Firefox and Safari OWA support. You're really going to go through a major upgrade to please the fraction of users who are OWA-centric, and the fraction of THEM who don't use IE?#3: Fix. This. Now. There is zero reason for anyone to send to an all-hands distribution list without a trusted person's say-so. This behaviour is the biggest black-eye IT can get--annoying its customers! Set the distribution groups to only receive from a set address, task that role-holder the 15 minutes a day it'll take to moderate submissions, and be done with it. You're the CIO! Set the policy!#4(cost) I'll assume you've already tested Exch2010's Unified Communications and you have a blood-signed promise from your integrator/PBX vendor that it'll scale. You do, don't you? And you've planned for the additional load on the SAN . . . nope, no stats. And an MWI light? Really? So the takeaway for this point is an MWI light on the phone and voice-to-text processing for voicemail?2010 sounds like a great product. But this article is a lousy justification for a real-world IT project.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188922]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[stephen.sandifer@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:38:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Three reasons why our college is upgrading to Exchange Server 2010]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188891]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Interested to know if Google Apps was evaluated as part of this decision. They have a compelling story relative to cost savings, collaboration and innovation.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188891]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[james_smale@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:13:57 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I always think the main reason you upgrade is]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188753]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[the Microsoft Campus Agreement.Tell me, without that, would you still upgrade?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188753]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[The 'G-Man.']]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:35:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Nice Article]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188743]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hey Scott, Nice article I also follow your blog.  I work in Education as well and it's nice to know my group isn't the only one considering going to Exchange 2010 right away.  We are mainly driven by the new features of OWA.Jim]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-319754-3188743]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[james.peluso@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:24:33 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

