Talk:Microsoft Exchange Server

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Exchange Server article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Request: Critisisms

Could someone with the right knowledge help expand the article with a critisisms section? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.213.130 (talk • contribs) 16:04, February 25, 2006

Sure First thing is that Exchange does not offer clean upgrads from previous versions often. So whenever Microsoft come up with some new brillient idea by looking and copying other applications (Lotus Domino in most casses) we the users have to go through a new migration. It is only available on the Windows platform. All the problems with OS are inhereted by the Exchange Server so you need both patched all the time. Exchange only offers mail but if you need more then that you need SQL server, Sharepoint server, VB or Other .Net development tools and Microsoft Office. Do not forget IIS and ASP environament. So bassically what you can do with 2 people in Lotus Notes you need team of 10 people in Microsoft env. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.190.188 (talk • contribs) 17:38, January 25, 2007

[edit] Intro NPOV

The opening paragraph implies MS Exchange Server is losing marketshare to Linux alternatives without citing evidence thereof. Was this written by a neutral writer or someone with an agenda to support Linux without proof of its dominance or rising dominance in the field of enterprise messaging and collaboration? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.139.10 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 November 2005.

Leading questions are unwanted.

Questions about the validity and neutrality of statements are more important than questions about what kinds of people make them.

We are not in search of neutral writers; There are none. What we want are neutral texts.

LionKimbro

The text of this entry clearly reads as a PR piece from Microsoft. Phrases and words such as "phenomenal success," "better," "overcame," "enhanced" and "improved" are at best subjective and at worst, blantant hucksterism. This entry needs extensive neutralizing.

spambox

I'd agree that is reads as Microsoft marketing copy. It seems to lack any technical depth as well (which is typical of marketing copy). --David Woolley 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that remarking on how it lacks depth and looks like marketing without being specific, or trying to solve the problems and/or discussing the solutions won't help much. -- Northgrove 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
overcame: The "overcame" is saw didn't seem to be used in a biased context. It was used to show which limitations it overcame in some predecessors. That's not really advertisement, now is it? Surely, it did overcame some limitations? The context matter a lot -- "overcame" as in "overcame the feature set of (insert other mail server)" would be more POV. better/enhanced: This should perhaps be changed to other words, but they do explain the reasoning behind them (except in the Exchange 2007 section which needs to be fixed), so the reader is at least able to form own opinions on if it is. But it's possible other words could be used, as it's subjective. phenomenal: Was removed by now. -- Northgrove 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Exchange Hosting section isn't Microsoft Marketing then it has no other value. It includes a link to there hosting sales:

"Microsoft Exchange Server can also be purchased as a hosted service. This not only eliminates the upfront cost of purchasing hardware and software, but also saves on the cost of hiring Exchange system administrators. Hosted Exchange services take care of licensing, antivirus, spam filtering, backups, patches, upgrades and 24x7 support to end users. To find a Microsoft Exchange Hosting provider, consult Microsoft's approved list from their Hosted Exchange Server Partner Directory."

My opinion would be to delete section and replace it with with a simple statement that MS is offering hosting. Since I am not an editor I will leave the editing to someone else. Just my 2 cents. 69.72.2.72 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Link to Exchange 2007 Preview site

Once 2007 is released, this link will probably break, and need to be replaced with a comparable reference. Keramos 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's RTM'd now so I'd say the whole Exchange 2007 section needs to get reworked/merged into the history section. 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Competitors Section Overcrowded

It seems this list is getting longer and longer, many of these competitors don't even have Wikipedia pages. Perhaps we should have some sort of notability requirement for inclusion on this list. Raitchison 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange & Domino comparison study

Recently, Microsoft posted a META Group study entitled "Messaging cost of ownership: Microsoft Exchange 2003 and Lotus Domino in small and medium organizations" to the Microsoft Exchange website. While it probably is no surprise that the report's findings favor Microsoft, reviewing the report yields a number of interesting questions -- about the validity of the study. Here are ten highlights that we believe should be taken into consideration with regard to this particular report:


The report was funded by Microsoft. IBM was not involved in defining the scope, measurements, or comparison criteria. IBM doesn't even know which Notes/Domino customers were interviewed for this study.


As of the date of posting this IBM commentary, which followed a discussion with META about the report: 1) The report is not published on META Group's website. 2) It does not list the META employees who were involved in the study. 3) It does not bear a META practice report number. META indicates that the report was conducted and authored by META Group Consulting, not their analyst team.


The sample size used for reporting is nine -- four Lotus customers, five Microsoft customers. Are those customers considered representative of the entire small/medium-sized market, comprising tens of millions of users?


The report compares Exchange 2003 customers with a mix of Notes/Domino R5, 6, and 6.5 customers (R5 shipped in 1999). Is this a balanced comparison?


According to META, the study represents a moment in time snapshot of cost data, factored to represent a one-year TCO. Cost factors in the report such as upgrade and disposition costs can vary widely during the usable life of a product. Can a snapshot be an accurate predictor of long-term costs?


Unlike many TCO studies, the report never discloses the methodology used to calculate the various costs involved, or whether they were normalized to account for variances in system configurations or user population. It simply displays several comparative bar charts of results, without indicating how those numbers were arrived at. Without these details, how can the reader validate the relevance or applicability of these figures to their own environment?


The report compares Exchange customers who are 80% centralized (typically a lower-cost configuration) with Lotus customers who are claimed to be 50% centralized. In turn, half of the "centralized" Lotus customers have numerous remote sites. Is this a balanced comparison?


The report compares Exchange customers who are all running Windows 2003 with Lotus customers who are leveraging the multiple operating systems supported by Domino today. Is this a balanced comparison? The report even acknowledges that the "Higher individual server costs were primarily due to depreciation and annual maintenance costs of Sun servers running Domino." How different would the comparison look if the one Lotus customer running Sun hardware had been excluded?


The report includes several unusual metrics for a TCO study, and excludes others. Tasks such as procurement and disposition were included, while factors like downtime and performance were excluded. Given the "moment in time" nature of the data collection, does this reflect the typical "real world" measurement criteria for system costs?


The report indicates that it studies messaging costs only, and that "the costs of Lotus Domino application components were NOT included in the study". In the typical Domino deployment, services such as directory, security, database storage, replication, and workflow are shared between messaging and application server environments. While we believe META attempted to account for some aspect of these costs, the lack of provided detail raises questions as to the accuracy of trying to separate services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.190.188 (talk • contribs) 17:47, January 25, 2007

[edit] Exchange server 5 and Xenix

I recall from somewhere that MS used Xenix internally for email, right up until their last Xenix machine was replaced with Exchange Server 5.

Is this an urban legend? Or is there something official to back this up?

NevilleDNZ 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"This technical case study examines the evolution of Microsoft's legacy XENIX-based messaging system into to the present Microsoft Exchange environment. [...] The bulk of research and planning for the migration from the legacy XENIX system began in 1993 and was completed just before Microsoft Exchange 4.0 shipped in April 1996."[1] njan 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

In my opinion, starting the article off with a technical history section is a poor way to introduce any topic. This should be moved a lower and more appropriate position in the article - mostly likely toward the end of it. --Mespinola 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hosted Exchange

Is there any reason that it seems like the most perfect thing in the world - why are no disadvantages to this method stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inanimous (talk • contribs) 05:50, July 23, 2007

the poeple who decide to host rather than fund an exchange server often lack the technical knowledge of the application to make required in depth analysis of the options. hence, so long as theres less money involved its a defacto 'better choice(c)'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.160.39 (talk • contribs) 17:38, August 1, 2007

[edit] No criticisms section? No alternate software section?

Come on; every reasonably popular software article has these, and this should be no exception. Judging by the above comments, this article used to have these, but there aren't any there. Is this a case of Microsoft astroturfing on Wikipedia or just the result of some petty argument over NPOV on content that is nearly impossible to make neutral (criticisms are inherently !NPOV). -Matt 15:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a "competing software" section, but it had grown to a list including everything from Lotus Notes and Novell Groupwise to anything on SourceForge that included the word "collaboration" in its description. As for criticisms, I don't remember the article having one, but perhaps it should. (oh, and before figuring the lack of these sections is intentional, don't forget WP:AGF) -U 20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I went and trolled some software packages that came immediately to mind (Apache HTTP Server, Lotus Notes, Novell Groupwise, Sendmail, Ubuntu, KDE, as a sample) and only Lotus Notes had a "well developed" criticism section. KDE has a section, but it's one sentence saying "KDE is thought to be hard to use, but a study shows it's easier than XP." Just food for thought.. -U 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Criticisms secn is needed, and npov is generally not the arguments used to censor the secn. Provided the criticisms mentioned come from a reliable source, are not subjective, properly cited and do not put undue weight, they are absolutely essential. But maintaining a high quality of the secn becomes difficult, though. If someone wants to aggregate such criticisms, s/he is most welcome.
As for alternatives, the list quickly will balloon out of control. The most important alternatives should be integrated into text. And the categories at the bottom should be the destination if the list is needed.--soum talk 07:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, keep in mind that this article is supposed to explain Microsoft Exchange Server, not to propose alternative software packages. "Alternate software" sections are just another vector for introducing POV into an article. We have a link to the List of collaborative software article in the See also section; lets leave it at that. — EagleOne\Talk 15:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What standards does it use?

Can anyone say if this server uses open standards, or if it uses Microsoft-specific standards, thereby requiring end-users to have Microsoft client software? I ask because my institution just switched over to Exchange, and the support staff advises us to use Microsoft email clients. The MS software takes advantage of all the Exchange features, but it looks like even basic mail functions are broken when non-MS software (i.e. Thunderbird) is used with the Exchange server.

I've found some articles suggesting that MS is using closed standards on the server to pressure users into adopting their client software, but I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on them. You may be interested in the following:

  • Section: "The Special Lock of Exchange Server"[2]
  • Exchange and iPhone[3]

AdamRetchless 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)