+1 for Azure AD sync...much nicer. On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:09 AM Freddy Grande <[email protected]> wrote:
> For what it’s worth, we recently completed a migration from on-premises > Exchange 2007 to Office 365 and upgraded clients to Office 365 click-to-run > 2013. We’ve run into a couple of weird bugs with 2013 (macros in Excel > spreadsheets) that have been fixed in 2016 and have been rolling it > out/upgrading users when we can. > > > > Regards, > > Freddy > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Raper > *Sent:* Wednesday, 16 December 2015 3:00 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [Exchange] O365 and standalone Outlook > > > > You are welcome. J > > > > As far as I know, DirSync works regardless of the plan you’re on. That > being said, I’ve personally only worked with Dirsync with Enterprise E1 and > E3. (and by the way, its now called Azure Active Directory Sync)…..DirSync > is so 2014…. AAD Sync is really better, IMO….much improved. > > > > When moving to O365, keep in mind that you’re essentially paying Microsoft > to keep you on the latest and greatest of Exchange. So, in actuality, > people running on O365 are going to be running on the latest and greatest > equivalent of Exchange on-prem version before the on-premises version is > even RTM. My understanding is that O365 Exchange Online has been Exchange > 2016 under the covers for several months now. So….. a move to O365 means > you are essentially committing yourself to stay on the latest (or at least > the next to latest) version of Outlook if you don’t want to have > compatibility issues. Personally, I would not run on a version of Outlook > more than one rev back for very long if I could avoid it. Right now I m > running OL2013, but already have an image with OL2016 on it that I plan to > move to by year end. (I’m the Exchange/O365 guy for the moment, so I’m > trying to stay on top of it for now). > > > > The nice thing is that O365 Outlook on the Web is so feature rich that you > almost don’t even need Outlook. > > > > Jonathan > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Richard Stovall > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 15, 2015 11:38 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Exchange] O365 and standalone Outlook > > > > That's what I was afraid of. Thanks. > > > > Any thoughts about dirsync at that level of O365 if they decide to move > forward with the $5/mo product? > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Jonathan Raper <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you’re entertaining O365, you need to ditch Outlook 2007 and get on a > newer version. I strongly advise going with nothing less than 2013….and > consider moving to 2016 once it is proven. I’ve seen some quirkiness with > 2010 and O365. > > > > http://windowsitpro.com/blog/why-exchange-2016-ignores-outlook-2007 > > > > from that article “Exchange 2016 supports the same set of Outlook clients > as Exchange Online does“ > > > > Jonathan > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Stovall > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 15, 2015 10:04 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Exchange] O365 and standalone Outlook > > > > I have a garage client that is thinking about moving to O365's $5/mo plan > for e-mail hosting. My Google-fu is failing me at the moment, and I can't > seem to find the minimum version of Outlook required to connect via RPC > over HTTPS/Outlook Anywhere/whatever-they're-calling-it-now. Does anyone > know for sure if Outlook 2007 and newer will work? > > > > Thank you. This will be my first foray into O365 land and I'm sure this > won't be the last question. > > > > Cheers, > > RS > > > > PS Dirsync works at this level, right? Even the password hash option > that requires people to sign in to Outlook manually? > > > NOTICE: This email is confidential. If you are not the nominated > recipient, please immediately delete this email, destroy all copies and > inform the sender. Australian Maritime Systems Ltd. (AMS) prohibits the > unauthorised copying or distribution of this email. This email does not > necessarily express the views of AMS. AMS does not warrant nor guarantee > that this email communication is free from errors, virus, interception or > interference. >
