Today's announcement of a dramatic price reduction for Virtual Server perhaps works for your base, no?
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 1:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement The migration story/plan does indeed have to be bulletproof. I'm not ADMT changing the name in Longhorn like the supported story is now. BTW have we forgot virtualization? Putting all that we do on SBS is truly insane. I have Exchange by design sucking up RAM, I have MSDE's that cannot behave. Inplaces are crud. I don't like them for 2000 to 2003. I think Centro will pick up the larger SBS shops.. I think SBS needs to get easier and more of a "toy server" than it is now. Michael B. Smith wrote: > The discussion in this group tends to center on the large enterprise. > :-) There are a LOT more small companies than there are large companies. > > For many of my clients, this is PROBABLY (who can say with certainty?) > going to represent a burden. Most of them upgraded hardware with their > Exchange 2003 deployments, and most of them have not planned to upgrade > again within a five year window. However, I've found that my smaller > clients are much more likely to be early adopters of software updates. > They like the feature content boosts. They like the "gee-whiz" factor. > They like being able to discuss that cool new stuff on the golf course. > Etc. > > To them, the end-user cost of upgrading isn't important. I don't think > that really starts showing up in most companies until they are large > enough to actually have an IT staff. They just want to stick in the disk > and go. (Generally, I get brought in later to clean that all up, but > that is another story...) > > It's already tough to sell them on having multiple servers. Now, they'll > need to dedicate ANOTHER server to messaging? Even if only temporarily? > When they've already got this work-horse of a box running Exchange? Or > they have to shut down, ExMerge out their mailboxes, format, do a > disaster recovery reinstall, and ExMerge mail back in? At what cost and > risk? > > I think this is one release too early. I think the big guys need the > 64-bit, absolutely. And I even understand WHY Microsoft only wants a > single platform. But I just think that it is one release too soon to > require it. > > I'm also concerned about some of the other changes in Exchange 12 being > too far in the enterprise direction. With the server roles, the lack of > some integration that was present before, and other additional elements > of complexity - it may become much more difficult for the small shops to > roll out. That is another thing that is just too early to tell. > > Oh -- and I had this discussion with a couple of the Exchange team as > well -- it DOES NOT matter even one bit that most of the server hardware > sold today is x64 capable. Because you can't just "flip a bit" and > suddenly you are running Windows 64-bit. It requires a reinstall. Of > everything. (And don't think that you can use that to get around the > in-place upgrade issue -- it would be wrong to ass/u/me that E12 will > mount an Exchange 2003 store. Another thing we've yet to see.) And then > you have to migrate. And fix DNS. And your Outlook profiles. Etc. Maybe > more stuff -- just too early to tell. > > It is a lot of details for the SMB. (And don't get me wrong -- there are > lots of really smart SMB's out there -- but there are also lots of them > that would find managing these details an impossible task.) > > I can just see dozens of difficult conversations with dozens of clients > upon release. I already dread them. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick > Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit > announcement > > I realize we're a bit off-topic, but... > > I disagree with this being a mistake. A lot of the problems with > Exchange (I'll limit the discussion to this area, joe ;) centered around > memory addressing. It wasn't until Windows 2003 SP1 that they reversed > the recommendation to use PAE vs. not. When clustering, memory was > always a limiting factor. 64bit price differential doesn't seem to be > terribly huge, so I'm not sure what the objection is other than it may > slow down adoption for those that purchased new-ish 32bit systems and > don't want to upgrade the hardware yet. To that, I would say that > hardware is likely the least of your costs in this equation. In the > smallest of shops, that may be closer to equal in terms of costs. As you > scale up and add features, hardware is almost always the cheapest > resource in the equation. > > Can you expand into why you think 64bit only would be a problem? I'd > like to at least understand this a bit better. If you need to, feel > free to drop the note off-line so we don't drift too far OT. > > Al > > > > >> From: "Michael B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: [email protected] >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit >> announcement >> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:56:36 -0500 >> >> It was made in the Exchange product team meetings with the Exchange >> MVPs. >> >> I can assure you, our reaction was not positive. I think it is a >> serious mistake. >> >> M >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:03 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit >> announcement >> >> >> Wow. I don't recall Muglia making that statement at the summit, I think >> > > >> he would have been beaten up pretty bad.... >> >> >> "Muglia made several product announcements during his keynote address. >> >> As part of its commitment to 64-bit computing, Microsoft has been >> delivering products that are optimized for 64-bit, including the newly >> released SQL Server(tm) 2005, Visual Studio(r) 2005 and Virtual Server >> 2005 R2. To help customers take full advantage of the power of 64-bit >> computing, products including Microsoft(r) Exchange Server "12," >> Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, Windows Server(tm) "Longhorn" >> Small Business Server, and Microsoft's infrastructure solution for >> midsize businesses, code-named "Centro," will be exclusively 64-bit and >> > > >> optimized for x64 hardware. In a future update release to Microsoft's >> upcoming Windows Server "Longhorn" operating system, code-named Windows >> > > >> Server "Longhorn" R2, customers will see the complete transition to >> 64-bit-only hardware, while still benefiting from 32-bit and 64-bit >> application compatibility. For the highest-scale application and >> database workloads, Windows Server on 64-bit Itanium-based systems will >> > > >> continue to be the premier choice for customers for years to come." >> >> The LH SBS package is pretty funny too... Imagine going into all of >> those small companies and telling them they don't have a choice but to >> buy a new server when they want to get the new security enhancements. >> >> I hope MS decides to support K3 and Exchange K3 for some time. Though I >> > > >> am already seeing a huge reduced emphasis and making K3 work right now. >> >> Any good non-GNU message/collaboration apps out there? Something with >> maybe a BSD license? >> >> joe >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:03 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit >> announcement >> >> >> >> Where'd you find that? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Brian Desmond >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> >> c - 312.731.3132 >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:33 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement >> >> >> >> This just in: >> >> "As some of you are attending IT Forum in Barcelona, I want to make >> sure those of you who are not get the latest updates. At IT Forum, >> Microsoft will announce broad support for 64 bit across many of its >> > product lines. > >> As part of that announcement we will be announcing that Exchange 12 >> will be 64 bit only. This is a significant decision for us and it is >> one that we did not make lightly. Many of you and your customers may >> have questions about why Exchange 12 will be 64 bit only and the mail >> below provides some background on the factors that lead to this >> decision and also the benefits from 64 bit that we are seeing in our >> early dog food & TAP deployments." >> >> >> >> Martin Tuip >> >> MVP Exchange >> >> > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
