The harm might be increased CPU or memory usage, reduced scalability etc. Whilst you can quantify some direct benefits (more disks), I assume that most people will be swapping 9GB SCSI disks for new 1TB SATA2 disks that probably consume a bunch less power. Additionally the increased productivity if features are deployed correctly will, IMHO, save a bunch of energy.
People are point the finger at data center power and cooling requirements, but look at how IT has transformed business - everything from online banking to systems that more effeciently route FedEd/DHL drivers to save time and energy. We really don't have enough information. I suspect that this is based on analysis of what's cost effective given real world data and complaints about the limitations of Exchange. We've had the same complaints about UAC or Office 2007 ribbon UI, 16->32->64bit computing. But with a bit of subsequent tweaking, I'm sure we'll not want to go back to what we had before. Cheers Ken ________________________________________ From: Carl Houseman [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:16 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I have to agree. What's the harm in leaving in a feature that is working perfectly well? We see this all the time, working features removed from upgraded products. They tried to do the same with PF's and we pushed back, and hopefully PF's will continue for the forseeable future. I guess it's too late to reverse the decision on SIS, but MS needs to understand that pulling features has consequences. Not to mention, just because running more cheap SATA drives is an alternative to SIS, doesn't make it a good idea. Running more drives means higher power consumption, more rack/floor space. Did MS miss the "green" bus here? There's public relations gold in being able to advertise green. Carl -----Original Message----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:03 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Brian Desmond <[email protected]> wrote: > OK so before we go down the Exchange 2010 sucks because I think I > need single instance [attachment] storage route, let's look at some > other new stuff: I'm not saying Exchange 2010 doesn't bring anything to the table. It has a lot of really interesting features. For us, I know, the archiving capabilities are *really* interesting. But here's the thing: If someone has a product that has features that one uses today, and the next release of the product takes away those features, that's a step backwards. It doesn't matter that the new release is faster/lower/longer/wider, if it doesn't deliver what we're depending on today. Since we're using bad analogies: Look at your car. Say next year's model has a better radio, GPS navigation, power seats, and a built-in hibachi grill. But it gets 1/2 as many miles to the gallon. What do you care more about? (Again, scalability upward doesn't matter to us small shops. We don't care if you can run 3000 users per server where you could only run 1000 before. We only have 70 users; other small shops will have fewer, or a few hundred, tops.) /> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
