Very true. Most companies don't want to serve individuals - its too expensive. Doesn't help us individuals all that much though, does it?
------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net] > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:35 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > Having spent 17 long years in the utility industry, I can > tell you that > few suppliers are really interested in selling to residential > customers. > They want the big boys. I kind of figure that > government-owned gas and > electric utilities might be inevitable for those not already that way. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of > Roger Seielstad > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 4:46 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > Potentially. However, you're not blessed with Bellsouth. The > deregulation rules specify copper lines have to be > deregulated, so they > ran fibre to each neighborhoods. Since most of metro Atlanta is > connected via slicks or significantly backhauled to central offices, > that puts them in the unique situation where while everyone else can't > offer faster than IDSL (144k - DSL over ISDN lines), they can > offer ADSL > or SDSL to just about every person in the area. > > And there are still no valid options for alternate local telephone > service here. Yes, a few offer it, but as deregulation didn't include > the cable plant entering your house, it's a sham. > > Then there's Atlanta's "deregulated" natural gas industry. The old > company (Atlanta Gas Light) exists to actually manage the physical > delivery only - you have to actually deal with a remarketer for all > billing and service inquiries because AGL is forbidden by law to have > any customers. Across the board, prices increased, and have stayed > higher than pre-deregulation prices. > > Competition is an interesting thing. When it's a utility type > need, I've > yet to see it work in my favor. When it's not a utility, I'd > agree that > some competition is good. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Sr. Systems Administrator > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > Atlanta, GA > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice@;pacbell.net] > > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 11:14 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > To the contrary, local competition in the telephone service > > has probably > > facilitated availability of DSL much faster than we would have seen > > otherwise. I really don't think Pacific Bell would be > advertising its > > availability if it were a tarriffed product whose pricing and > > availability were mandated by the California Public Utilities > > Commission. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of > > Roger Seielstad > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 4:27 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > get into. Regardless you can argue the fact that more > > competition only > > > > > creates better products > > > > That's not a hard and fast economics law, Hummert. All one > > has to do is > > look at local utility (telephone, gas, electricity) > > deregulation to see > > that compettion isn't always what its cracked up to be. > > > > Quite often, competition hurts products, not helps. For instance, > > Exchange's traditional competitors are Notes and Groupwise. Each of > > the three have a long and relatively distinguished implementation > > record. Now we have OpenExchange. At this point, its probably 3-5 > > years away from getting to the current state of any of the > "Big 3" in > > functionality, stability and scalability. That's 3-5 years the big > > players will continue on their own paths, most likely considering > > OpenExchange as nothing more than yet another wannabe. > > > > You see, competition isn't beneficial if the competitors > aren't on a > > relatively level playing field to start. > > > > Roger > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > > Sr. Systems Administrator > > Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity > > Atlanta, GA > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:hummertc@;noghri.net] > > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 5:43 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > > > You can argue yes and no to that. But that's something > I'm not going > > > > to get into. Regardless you can argue the fact that more > > competition only > > > creates better products > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of > > Chris Scharff > > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:47 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > > > There's plenty of competition today to Exchange which provides > > > significantly more groupware functionality than > > "openexchange". Some > > > of it even runs on *nix. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:hummertc@;noghri.net] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:40 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > > > But is competition. Hopefully someday it will become good > > > competition > > > > and finally Microsoft will have someone to try to one up > > again with > > > > each release instead of providing new functions and > > > features when they > > > > > > > get around to it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:bounce-exchange-97309@;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of > > > Chris Scharff > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:04 PM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not "open" and it's certainly not Exchange. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:tony.mccullough@;hcs.state.or.us] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:21 AM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > > > > > You mentioned that there is nothing in the Linux world like > > > > > Exchange. > > > > > > > > > I haven't looked at this but I received this "Open > > Exchange" link > > > > > from > > > > > > > > > a friend of mine the other day. I can't vouch for it, > > > but thought > > > > > I'd > > > > > > > > > throw it out. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/suse_business/openexchange/ > > > > > in > > > > > dex. > > > > > ht > > > > > ml > > > > > > > > > > Tony McCullough > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:Ken.Cornetet@;kimball.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 7:09 AM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's my take: > > > > > > > > > > A quick peek a CDW shows SBS at $1277 > > > > > http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.asp?EDC=274287. > > > Microsoft > > > > > is offering a $500 rebate if you can read the SBS sales > > > literature > > > > > and answer 20 some-odd questions. That puts the price at $777. > > > > > > > > > > I'm not familiar with the MCSP program, so I cannot > > > comment on that. > > > > > > > > You are also forgetting about Exchange CALS at $70 each. > > > > > > > > > > You are correct in that growing past SBS is somewhat > painful (I > > > > > might argue with the 10-20 times more expensive. Exmerging 50 > > > > > mailboxes is not that painful...), but I would maintain > > that if a > > > > > company finds themselves outgrowing SBS, then it should > > not have > > > > > been put in in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, Linux is a viable option for small companies (big > > > ones, too). > > > > > It does have some drawbacks, though. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Support. Finding a local consultant to support a Linux > > > system is > > > > > going to be harder than finding someone to support Microsoft > > > > > products. > > > > > > > > > > 2. Third-party applications. Going Linux defiantly puts > > a company > > > > > outside the mainstream and limits third party server > > applications > > > > > like > > > > > > > > > mail filtering, antivirus, web surfing control, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Running a business on Linux servers is, IMHO, very a > very viable > > > > > > option. But, it pretty much requires a resident > > propeller-head to > > > > > smooth over the rough spots. Most small companies > (where SBS is > > > > > targeted) just can't afford a full-time system admin. > > They would > > > > > much rather farm it out to a consultant. > > > > > > > > > > Let's not forget that Exchange is more than email as > > > well. There's > > > > > nothing in the open source arena (that I know of) that > > > can provide > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > same functionality that Exchange provides. > > > > > > > > > > I'll conclude stating that IMHO, SBS is an excellent > value when > > > > > applied in the appropriate environment - that is a > > small company > > > > > (5-15 > > > > > > > > > employees) needing at least file-sharing and Exchange > > and with no > > > > > resident system admin. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 6:55 PM > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > Subject: RE: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thought long and hard about letting this go, but where is > > > the fun in > > > > > > > > that? > > > > > > > > > > First, to answer the migration piece of this. The only > > > option I can > > > > > think of at this time would be to treat the SBS Exchange > > > system as a > > > > > > > > foreign mail system, meaning export and import > mailbox data to > > > > > migrate. Migration costs will be 10-20 times what it > > would be to > > > > > simply put another server in place and move users. But, > > > if is your > > > > > only option... > > > > > > > > > > Now on to the fun... > > > > > > > > > > SBS License: $1,499.00 (5 clients) > > > > > > > > > > Real W2K Server license: $1,199.00 (10 clients) > > > > > E2K Standard Edition: $1,299.00 (can always be upgraded to > > > > > Enterprise if > > > > > needed) > > > > > > > > > > Now, realistically, if you are a small little shop, this > > > is all the > > > > > Microsoft products that you need and so for 1.67 times > > the amount > > > > > you eliminate all of the limitations of SBS and have > > actual, real > > > > > products > > > > > > > > > versus cripple-ware. > > > > > > > > > > But what about ISA? Don't need it. Go get a Linksys box > > > for $100 for > > > > > > > > your firewall and it is wide open outbound. > > > > > > > > > > But what about SQL Server? IF you need it, then it's > $1,499.00. > > > > > Otherwise, you don't need it. > > > > > > > > > > If you are a small business, you can get cripple-ware for > > > $1.5K or > > > > > actual software to run your business for $2-4K. Under > the first > > > > > scenario you are setting yourself up for failure and > under the > > > > > second, > > > > > > > > > you have invested just a little more money but have > primed your > > > > > business for growth. > > > > > > > > > > And if you are such a cash-strapped business that you > > > cannot afford > > > > > the extra grand or two, then you should probably be > > > looking at free > > > > > software. Put a Linux box up, done. It's cost $0.00. > > > > > > > > > > And, just for fun, 2 MCP exams, ~$250 and an MCSP license > > > ~$2000.00. > > > > > > > > So again, for just a few extra (hundreds) of dollars > > you get lots > > > > > and lots and lots of actual software versus cripple-ware. > > > > > > > > > > So where is the business case for SBS? There isn't one. > > It is for > > > > > closed-minded, all I know is Microsoft, lazy people > that do not > > > > > think far enough ahead to keep them from running into > > > closed doors. > > > > > Installing SBS is setting yourself up for failure, > > period. I have > > > > > seen > > > > > > > > > it time and time again. > > > > > It is Microsoft cripple-ware, plain and simple. You get > > > what you pay > > > > for > > > > > and > > > > > you get what you deserve when you don't plan ahead. > > > > > > > > > > I am more than willing to admit I am wrong, so show me > > a business > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > where SBS is the RIGHT solution. And by that, I do > not mean the > > > > > lowest > > > > > > > > > cost solution, because Linux has that one well in hand. I > > > mean, when > > > > > > > > all the pros and cons are analyzed, that SBS is the winner. I > > > > > honestly have never encountered it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You know what they say: opinions are like, well > never mind... > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I think SBS is a fantastic product, > > > provided you keep > > > > > > it's limitations in mind up front. Yes, it would be > a pain to > > > > > > upgrade, but my guess is that the vast majority of SBS > > > > > > installations > > > > > > > > > > would never face that task. > > > > > > > > > > > > Most small companies (10-15 employees) could never > > > afford to buy > > > > > > Win2k, E2K, and ISA server, let alone SQLServer. SBS > > gives them > > > > > > all this for the price of Win2K server alone! > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg@;infonition.com] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:22 PM > > > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > Subject: Re: Moving E2k storage group to new Server > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the easiest way to do this is to install another > > > E2K server > > > > > > and simply move the mailboxes to the new server. > Now, the only > > > > > > > thing > > > > > > > > > > that might throw a wrench into this for you is running > > > sbs2k. And, > > > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > > > have repeatedly stated this and let me go on record > as stating > > > > > > > that SBS is a terrible product that should never be > installed > > > > > > anywhere in > > > > > > > > > > the entire world because of the serious limitations that it > > > > > > imposes on organizations. This is a perfect example as > > > to why an > > > > > > organization should NEVER install SBS. And if there are any > > > > > > companies out there that have consultants recommending > > > SBS, fire > > > > > > them immediately and get somebody competant. > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the big problems with SBS is that it uses > the Standard > > > > > > Edition of Microsoft Exchange, which has the nasty > > > limitation of > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > being able to support multiple Exchange servers. > > > > > > > > > > > > From Microsoft docs: > > > > > > "Exchange 2000 on a Small Business Server installation is > > > > > > restricted > > > > > > > > > > from being part of a larger Exchange server > > > organization. Because > > > > > > Small Business Server 2000 is installed as the root of > > > the Active > > > > > > Directory forest, you cannot install the Exchange 2000 > > > component > > > > > > into an existing organization." > > > > > > > > > > > > Also from Microsoft docs: > > > > > > "Full installation of Windows 2000 is required. It is > > > not possible > > > > > > > > > to upgrade Microsoft BackOffice Small Business > Server to the > > > > > > Windows > > > > > > > > > > 2000 operating system; however, if your hardware meets > > > the system > > > > > > requirements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/sysr > > > > > eq > > > > > s/) > > > > > > for Windows 2000, you can install the full product. > > > > > > > > > > > > The current plan for the next release of Small Business > > > Server is > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > base the product on the Windows 2000 operating > > system. For more > > > > > > information about Small Business Server, see the > > Small Business > > > > > > Server Web site > > > > > > (http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusinessserver/default.htm)." > > > > > > > > > > > > What this means in a nutshell is that I don't have a > > > solution for > > > > > > you. I have searched Technet and have not been able > to find an > > > > > > > acceptable upgrade path from SBS to anything useable. > > > Essentially, > > > > > > > > > since you are running SBS, you cannot install a new > E2K server > > > > > > > into the organization and simply move the user > > > mailboxes. And, in > > > > > > all honesty, I have not found an acceptable way to > > > upgrade SBS to > > > > > > W2K enterprise. > > > > > > > > > > > > If anyone has a solution out there for upgrading SBS to > > > enterprise > > > > > > > > > versions, I'd love to see it. There HAS to be a > way, Microsoft > > > > > > > could > > > > > > > > > > not have been THAT bone-headed. On the other hand, they > > > released > > > > > > SBS > > > > > > > > > > so I guess I wouldn't put anything past them. > > > > > > > > > > > > One thing you might try is backing up your stores, > > installing a > > > > > > new non-SBS server with full W2K and E2K and > > restoring to that > > > > > > server. > > > > > > > > > > > > Avoid SBS like the plague, it is a terrible, terrible > > > product and > > > > > > Microsoft, in good conscience, should NEVER have > > > released it upon > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > unsuspecting public. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exchange is working fine on the server its just > > that the raid > > > > > > > set on this dodgy ibm server keeps going critical after a > > > > > > > reboot(keep getting the runaround from ibm) and > we want the > > > > > > > customer to purchase a better server but there is a > > > lot of mail > > > > > > > stored on it and i was just wondering how easy/hard > > > would it be > > > > > > > to move the mail to another server. Also is their any > > > > > > > repercussions moving mail from sbs2k to a win2k o/s. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Damian. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > List posting FAQ: > > > http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > > Archives: > > > http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com > 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:leave-exchange@;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
