+1 On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Carl Houseman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 9GB SCSI disks? I hope they're still stuck on Exchange 2000 as well... > Swapping out 73GB or 150GB SCSI disks hopefully! > > As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU > requirements for the product? Doubtful. The thing they're eliminating is > a > bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of > regression testing with each new release. You won't find anyone to admit > that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod > from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced > staffing. > > Carl > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:28 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Amusing > > 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/> ~ > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
