Good questions. I think I'll save 'em to ask myself. (Like I said, I'm new here and the project is still in the planning stages.)
At this point, they could probably get by with OWA (especially if it were E2K OWA), except that they're all using Outlook now and might be unhappy with the "demotion" to OWA. Also, my boss is really hyped about increasing the amount of collaboration that goes on in our organization. So taking away some of those tools (even if they're just potential) might not fly. Your guess about speed is useful. If they stick with DSL-type speeds, it will work, albeit slowly. We have to ask ourselves if the cost of T1s all around is worth it. Thanks! Rob -----Original Message----- From: Bob Sadler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 8:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Speed Well, explain exactly what they will be needing. Do they use all the cool bells and whistles that E2K offers? Or are they just wanting email and calendar? If the later, why not just let them use OWA to get to your exchange box and then you don't need to worry about them using Outlook. On the other hand if you are using all the cool things E2K has to offer, doing work collaboration, instant messaging, etc., then they will need to use Outlook. I can tell you that I have ran tests with our system and my cable connection from home, and can make Outlook work fine, but it is a bit slow. Not for me, but for my users who are used to instant likity split connections. If your users need the same type of thing, T1's are great, but if that's the only thing you are using a T1 for, then it might be a bit much. Overall, ask yourself the question, what do your users need? Can they get by with OWA? If they can, just let them do that, otherwise, ask yourself what level of "speed" can my users take. Good Luck, Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----Original Message----- From: Rob Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 7:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Speed I'm new to this organization. Currently we have nine Exchange 5.5 servers (450 users) scattered around the country. They're all connected to the Exchange server at our headquarters in Philadelphia. All Internet mail goes through the Philadelphia connection. All the remote sites are connected to us, through the Internet, at various speeds, the fastest being some level of DSL. We're just at the beginning stages of moving our NT- and Exchange 5.5-based network to Win2k and Ex2k. One of the ideas being considered is to consolidate the 9 different Exchange servers into one server housed in Philadelphia. So my questions are: 1. What is the minimum speed you would suggest the remote sites be connected to us? (They'll be using Outlook.) 2. Is it a good idea? We're trying to lower the administrative overhead, and simplify the network. Thanks for your input, Rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rob Moore, MCSE American Friends Service Committee IT Department [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
