Talk:Microsoft Exchange Server
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Request: Critisisms
Could someone with the right knowledge help expand the article with a critisisms section? Thanks!
Sure First thing is that Exchange does not offer clean upgrads from previous versions often. So whenever Microsoft come up with some new brillient idea by looking and copying other applications (Lotus Domino in most casses) we the users have to go through a new migration. It is only available on the Windows platform. All the problems with OS are inhereted by the Exchange Server so you need both patched all the time. Exchange only offers mail but if you need more then that you need SQL server, Sharepoint server, VB or Other .Net development tools and Microsoft Office. Do not forget IIS and ASP environament. So bassically what you can do with 2 people in Lotus Notes you need team of 10 people in Microsoft env.
[edit] Intro NPOV
The opening paragraph implies MS Exchange Server is losing marketshare to Linux alternatives without citing evidence thereof. Was this written by a neutral writer or someone with an agenda to support Linux without proof of its dominance or rising dominance in the field of enterprise messaging and collaboration? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.139.10 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 November 2005.
Leading questions are unwanted.
Questions about the validity and neutrality of statements are more important than questions about what kinds of people make them.
We are not in search of neutral writers; There are none. What we want are neutral texts.
The text of this entry clearly reads as a PR piece from Microsoft. Phrases and words such as "phenomenal success," "better," "overcame," "enhanced" and "improved" are at best subjective and at worst, blantant hucksterism. This entry needs extensive neutralizing.
spambox
- I'd agree that is reads as Microsoft marketing copy. It seems to lack any technical depth as well (which is typical of marketing copy). --David Woolley 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that remarking on how it lacks depth and looks like marketing without being specific, or trying to solve the problems and/or discussing the solutions won't help much. -- Northgrove 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- overcame: The "overcame" is saw didn't seem to be used in a biased context. It was used to show which limitations it overcame in some predecessors. That's not really advertisement, now is it? Surely, it did overcame some limitations? The context matter a lot -- "overcame" as in "overcame the feature set of (insert other mail server)" would be more POV. better/enhanced: This should perhaps be changed to other words, but they do explain the reasoning behind them (except in the Exchange 2007 section which needs to be fixed), so the reader is at least able to form own opinions on if it is. But it's possible other words could be used, as it's subjective. phenomenal: Was removed by now. -- Northgrove 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Link to Exchange 2007 Preview site
Once 2007 is released, this link will probably break, and need to be replaced with a comparable reference. Keramos 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's RTM'd now so I'd say the whole Exchange 2007 section needs to get reworked/merged into the history section. 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Competitors Section Overcrowded
It seems this list is getting longer and longer, many of these competitors don't even have Wikipedia pages. Perhaps we should have some sort of notability requirement for inclusion on this list. Raitchison 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, considering that the competitors are software, maybe they should meet Wikipedia:Notability_(software) for inclusion --Fittysix 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Recently, Microsoft posted a META Group study entitled "Messaging cost of ownership: Microsoft Exchange 2003 and Lotus Domino in small and medium organizations" to the Microsoft Exchange website. While it probably is no surprise that the report's findings favor Microsoft, reviewing the report yields a number of interesting questions -- about the validity of the study. Here are ten highlights that we believe should be taken into consideration with regard to this particular report:
The report was funded by Microsoft. IBM was not involved in defining the scope, measurements, or comparison criteria. IBM doesn't even know which Notes/Domino customers were interviewed for this study.
As of the date of posting this IBM commentary, which followed a discussion with META about the report: 1) The report is not published on META Group's website. 2) It does not list the META employees who were involved in the study. 3) It does not bear a META practice report number. META indicates that the report was conducted and authored by META Group Consulting, not their analyst team.
The sample size used for reporting is nine -- four Lotus customers, five Microsoft customers. Are those customers considered representative of the entire small/medium-sized market, comprising tens of millions of users?
The report compares Exchange 2003 customers with a mix of Notes/Domino R5, 6, and 6.5 customers (R5 shipped in 1999). Is this a balanced comparison?
According to META, the study represents a moment in time snapshot of cost data, factored to represent a one-year TCO. Cost factors in the report such as upgrade and disposition costs can vary widely during the usable life of a product. Can a snapshot be an accurate predictor of long-term costs?
Unlike many TCO studies, the report never discloses the methodology used to calculate the various costs involved, or whether they were normalized to account for variances in system configurations or user population. It simply displays several comparative bar charts of results, without indicating how those numbers were arrived at. Without these details, how can the reader validate the relevance or applicability of these figures to their own environment?
The report compares Exchange customers who are 80% centralized (typically a lower-cost configuration) with Lotus customers who are claimed to be 50% centralized. In turn, half of the "centralized" Lotus customers have numerous remote sites. Is this a balanced comparison?
The report compares Exchange customers who are all running Windows 2003 with Lotus customers who are leveraging the multiple operating systems supported by Domino today. Is this a balanced comparison? The report even acknowledges that the "Higher individual server costs were primarily due to depreciation and annual maintenance costs of Sun servers running Domino." How different would the comparison look if the one Lotus customer running Sun hardware had been excluded?
The report includes several unusual metrics for a TCO study, and excludes others. Tasks such as procurement and disposition were included, while factors like downtime and performance were excluded. Given the "moment in time" nature of the data collection, does this reflect the typical "real world" measurement criteria for system costs?
The report indicates that it studies messaging costs only, and that "the costs of Lotus Domino application components were NOT included in the study". In the typical Domino deployment, services such as directory, security, database storage, replication, and workflow are shared between messaging and application server environments. While we believe META attempted to account for some aspect of these costs, the lack of provided detail raises questions as to the accuracy of trying to separate services.
