They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a platform, this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some nasty functional problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha and the PowerPC. They just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet. You still hear occasional complaints about those being dropped though you hear a lot more of "what are those platforms".
It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange Dev must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64 bit so that is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and design decisions would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems as well, probably help considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have helped the DSACCESS problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security design and AD integration. Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix much of anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they are able to use the more and more memory that you throw at it without having to use the complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit. Some might call that covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o) Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy bigger/faster hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older version of Windows to run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be amazing how fast it is. The hardware companies instead of bitching at MS should be paying them dividends and praising them for driving the hardware industry. Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going .NET.... joe ;o) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003. We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to you guys? Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember we're just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007.... SBS after that. I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to drop backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better security. So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of 64 bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again, isn't it? More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms are looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and break it. 2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs because of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks. Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think? Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to go...yeah ...that they need to do. Tomasz Onyszko wrote: > joe wrote: >> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn. >> >> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12. > > Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned > specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this announcement > too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with exchange 12 which > will be released in relatively short time. > > -- 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/
