On my way to the New England Notes Users Group meeting tonight in Waltham, hope to see some of you there...

In the meantime, this article came across my desk today.  Fascinating:

Rugullies said the product has been proven to offer enterprise-class scalability and performance. But she said IT managers should be aware of issues in areas such as calendaring and administration.

"Calendaring is one of Exchange Server 2003's biggest weaknesses," she said.

Rugullies said users had complained of poor synchronisation with the free/busy scheduler, unreliable calendar delegation, double-booking issues with shared mailboxes, and the fact that frequent diary changes sometimes erase meetings.

Microsoft plans to address these issues in the next major release of Exchange Server, expected in the second half of 2006.
This is really interesting.  Not dismissing Forrester's overall endorsement of Exchange 2003 (though one has to wonder why it has taken 18 months for them to issue it)... but the bolded quote surprises me.  Why?  Because in the rare case where a customer asserts a technical argument for moving for moving from Notes/Domino to Outlook/Exchange, it's an assertion that "calendaring in Outlook is better".  My response is usually that it's just different, not necessarily better.  For example, Outlook users don't have the ability to "delegate" an individual meeting to another user, like we do in Notes.  There's plenty of other differences, and we've talked about some of them -- my colleague Darren Adams has a page full of Outlook vs. Notes differences, actually.

So now we have a major, respected analyst  saying that calendaring in Exchange is weak.  Will be interesting to have this in the kit bag the next time I'm in one of those "but Outlook calendar is so much better" conversations.

Link: ComputerWeekly.com: Exchange Server 2003 is stable, says Forrester >

Post a Comment