Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Dan Holzrichter  | 6/14/2007 8:12:02 AM

   I think some of this info may be incorrect. Public folder support can be enabled. You get prompted when you install the server on whether you are supporting older outlook clients (which need public folders for their offline address books I think.) Maybe the confusion is because you can no longer administrate them from the windows admin client?? (you have to use powershell and/or an outlook client.)

1. 2  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/14/2007 8:17:37 AM

   @1 Dan, you're right that the reasons Ferris gives for -why- you'd want an Exchange 2003 server aren't 100% accurate. But the point of the article is about Microsoft's technical support policy -- as in, telephone/electronic support from the vendor won't be provided in a mixed environment. Which is an ouch.

   I encourage you to leave a comment on Ferris' site about the public folders point.

1. 3  Flemming Riis  | 6/14/2007 8:37:53 AM

   -No concept of customer-controlled migration planning here... especially not when you read this second one...

   You mean like when you had to upgrade your BES from 4.0 to 4.1 for official 7.0 support for domino.

   Its more the rule than the exeption that 3rd party tools needs to be upgraded before the server side, try going down to the TSM team and ask for domino 8 support for domino backup or X64 support for domino 7.0.2 backup agent, again 3rd party stuff needs to be updated before server side and often is lacking behind.

   In regards to the 2nd article its just plain wrong, but from a technial and a offical standpoint

   Sure Microsoft removed administration from gui on public folders but figured out their mistake and will readd it in SP1 but the rest is dead wrong.

   There is plenty of fun stuff to poke microsoft/exchange why not use some of the arsenal thats actually correct.

   and { Link }

   Supported Coexistence Scenarios

   Table 1 lists the supported coexistence scenarios with earlier versions of Exchange.

   Table 1 Coexistence scenarios supported for earlier versions of Exchange Server

   Exchange Server 5.5

   Not supported

   Exchange 2000 Server

   Supported

   Exchange Server 2003

   Supported

   Mixed Exchange 2000 Server and Exchange Server 2003 organization

   Supported

   :)

1. 4  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/14/2007 8:39:37 AM

   Time to see what Ferris has to say...

1. 5  Keith Brooks http://kbmsg.blogspot.com | 6/14/2007 8:47:11 AM

   Flemming is right of course, many times you need to update other pieces before the BIG software/OS/Server.

   From an admin perspective I can see why you would keep multiple servers(the lotus connector possibly, older/other gateways) because some products are not ready for 2007 yet.

   The same held true today because the servers(.doc, ST, quickplace, etc.) do not always support the new revisions and you end up with a mixed environment by default.

1. 6  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 6/14/2007 1:38:49 PM

   Unfortunately, Mr. Jennings is flat-out, 100% wrong: MS does support mixed orgs of Exchange 2000, Exchange 2003, and Exchange 2007, and they have since Exchange 2003 shipped. (I won't even bother addressing the whole public folder canard here since it's so obviously wrong.)

1. 7  Turtle http://www.weightlessdog.com/shell.nsf | 6/14/2007 2:10:40 PM

   This isn't any fun... I come in to catch up on good ole MS-bashing, and all this stuff is is trying to pick apart the original assertions!

   What's being missed is that MS has a very, very long history of rip-and-replace, and the fact that we're even debating whether or not a mixed 03 and 07 environment is or isn't supported points to the real problem. MS doesn't think of this stuff till after someone else points it out. Then they pretend to have considered it all along.

1. 8  steven  | 6/14/2007 2:28:55 PM

   Looks like they may have missed something. Yes Ed, I know, go post on Ferris, but more folks are gonna look here than there! This could be considered bashing where bashing might not be due.

   Here are the coexistence docs for 2003 & 2007: { Link }

   Of course we would assume that if the docs say this is how MSEX 2003/2007 coexist (the actual word they use is "SUPPORTED", then it is...well...ah.....Supported? Not sure anyone would say "Yeah it is supported but NOT by our Tech Support folks"?!?!?!? Not even MS is that ______! (insert your favorite derogatory adjective here).

1. 9  steven  | 6/14/2007 2:28:55 PM

   Looks like they may have missed something. Yes Ed, I know, go post on Ferris, but more folks are gonna look here than there! This could be considered bashing where bashing might not be due.

   Here are the coexistence docs for 2003 & 2007: { Link }

   Of course we would assume that if the docs say this is how MSEX 2003/2007 coexist (the actual word they use is "SUPPORTED", then it is...well...ah.....Supported? Not sure anyone would say "Yeah it is supported but NOT by our Tech Support folks"?!?!?!? Not even MS is that ______! (insert your favorite derogatory adjective here).

1. 10  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 6/14/2007 2:34:24 PM

   @7 - When the original assertions are patently wrong they should be picked apart. The real problem is that MS actually did something forward-thinking and none of the Domino fanboys can handle that.

1. 11  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 6/14/2007 2:54:44 PM

   @7: no, the real problem is that Ferris published something incorrect. Ed took it as gospel and linked to it. It's no different than if Ferris had said "IBM doesn't support upgrading from QuickPlace to Quickr".

1. 12  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/14/2007 3:11:53 PM

   @11 and then I said, "time to see what Ferris has to say". I e-mailed Richi by 9 AM this morning, no response yet.

1. 13  tony  | 6/14/2007 3:33:31 PM

   Ed .. so when are you going to blog a retraction? :)

1. 14  tony  | 6/14/2007 3:37:10 PM

   the technet article does say this: ( but that's a few versions back :))

   { Link }

   Exchange 2007 does not support coexistence with Exchange Server version 5.5. Your Exchange organization must be operating in native mode to support coexistence with Exchange 2007.

1. 15  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/14/2007 3:39:09 PM

   I'll retract when Ferris clarifies or retracts... my assumption is that there is something they know that isn't public today.

1. 16  steven  | 6/14/2007 3:44:10 PM

   @13... Not sure this is really required. But maybe we can all learn a lesson from this post. The MS docs say (and others too) that you are supported during a transition or migration AS LOGN AS your inteneded end state is to be 100% MSEX 2007. That is all this is coming down to. Now it is not stated very clearly, but it appears that is all this is.....A "non-event" event.

   { Link }

1. 17  Richi Jennings http://richi.co.uk/ | 6/14/2007 3:55:00 PM

   Hi gang.

   First, let's clarify that "support" in this context means "CSS/PSS will talk to you", not a questions of whether or not "it works."

   The linked technet article doesn't contradict what several ITpros and one MVP said to me at Tech-Ed -- Microsoft is telling them that they can't run mixed 2003/2007 and be supported by CSS/PSS. Don't shoot the messenger ;-)

   As I posted to the Ferris weblog, the situation about whether you need E2003 for PFs and F/B is "confused" to say the least. I'll totally concede what I wrote may be inaccurate.

1. 18  Flemming Riis  | 6/14/2007 4:13:09 PM

   @16

   and is states that coexistance is also supported

   { Link }

   If i posted something i heard from 2 guys that didnt bother to read blackberrys technotes or from someone that apperantly never seen exchange 2007 it could be fun , prehaps its a good way to get starting blogging.

1. 19  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/14/2007 4:24:42 PM

   Analysts get their information in a variety of ways. Some are reliable and some are not. In this case, Richi, who has been in the messaging industry for as long as I have, is writing on behalf of Ferris, a long-time and respected messaging industry analyst firm. I assume that Richi and David Ferris wouldn't put their names behind something specious or speculative. See comment #17 including the author's e-mail address.

1. 20  Flemming Riis  | 6/14/2007 4:29:14 PM

   -Analysts get their information in a variety of ways.

   Offcourse and i know that its impossible to verify even a small percentage of the info they get.

   and who knows pss might give back different responses depending on the person , and if they change a answer from what its the documentation they have some explaning to do.

1. 21  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 6/14/2007 5:51:13 PM

   @16 - The doc you link doesn't specify you must complete the migration to Exchange 2007 to be supported. It clearly states the following: "At the conclusion of each phase, the organization will have coexistence of Exchange 2007 with Exchange 2003 or Exchange 2000 and will be running in a supported coexistence mode."

   @17 - That's not what the published documentation says so somebody, somewhere, is confused. And it's not just me. :-)

   @20 - I'm with ya on this one. It doesn't take much digging to find out that there's more to the story than what Mr. Jennings was told at Tech-Ed.

1. 22  steven  | 6/14/2007 9:00:19 PM

   That is why I feel it is not very clear. The linked page does show various possible migrations and transitions with clearly defined mid points and end points. The end points listed in the table are all just MSEX2007, nothing else. I'm interpreting that to be all MSEX 2007 nothing else (aka coexistence gone). It looks like you're seeing it as "they did not say I had to be all 2007 and everything else will be gone", but that is what the table shows. The link provided comes from a previous page that talks about how coexistence, either in a migration or transition, is supported. That page (see link in @8) starts you on the path to the end state: “When [a] large organization gradually transitions a messaging system from Exchange 2000 Server or Exchange Server 2003 to Exchange 2007, the organization will probably have to maintain more than one version of Exchange !during that time!.”

   Both terms (migration or transition) are effectively defined as an end state being fully MSEX 2007. It looks like this is where the interpretation “you will be supported during your migration or transition, but you should not expect MS to provide support if that is not your goal” is coming from.

   We are getting ready to go through this "exercise" for about 50K seats (25% MSEX 2003, 25% Notes 6 & 7, 50% "other") so reading, analyzing, interpreting, and otherwise trying to get a handle on what it all is really trying to say is like pretending you're Horace Rumpole trying to get a confession after the trial has already started. Ironically though, he chooses not to use anything more that paper and a nice fountain pen. It’s Hilda who goes for the computer. I also doubt I have stated my case as eloquently as Rumpole could have managed.

1. 23  steven  | 6/14/2007 9:03:53 PM

   sorry....ment to preface that with an "@21"

1. 24  Richi Jennings http://richi.co.uk/ | 6/15/2007 1:02:49 AM

   Just an update: Microsoft's PR bunnies have promised to find a CSS/PSS spokesperson to "clarify" the situation. I've asked for a definitive statement, and will publish such when/if I get one that truly answers the question without fudge.

1. 25  Bill Brown  | 6/15/2007 11:21:49 AM

   @13, et al. I like the column in Table 1 "Supported transition and migration scenarios" labeled "In-place server upgrade to Exchange 2007."

   Why would you include a column that every entry is "not supported" even when discussing inplace upgrade of the imeddiately previous version?

1. 26  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/15/2007 11:51:12 AM

   @25 can't find your reference, but I did like reading this line: " Exchange 2007 requires that 64-bit hardware be supported in a production environment. Exchange 2007 cannot share hardware with Exchange 2003. However, if Exchange 2003 is currently installed on a server that uses 64-bit hardware, you can install Exchange 2007 on that server after Exchange 2003 is removed."

   Remove Exchange 2003 first? I guess there's no going back...

1. 27  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 6/15/2007 1:28:27 PM

   @26: no different than upgrading a Domino server on Windows 2003 to 64-bit (or Linux, FTM). Because you have to reload the OS, there's no coexistence; you have to move users to another server, install the 64-bit version, then move the users back. Unless you're using VMWare, but I digress.

1. 28  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 6/15/2007 1:52:59 PM

   @26 - I'm trying to figure out that "after it's removed" line.

   How about...

   "if Exchange 2003 is currently installed on a server that uses 64-bit hardware, you can install Lotus Domino 7 on that server after Exchange 2003 is removed."

   or...

   "if Windows Server 2003 is currently installed on a server that uses 64-bit hardware, you can install Red Hat Enterprise Server on that server after Windows Server 2003 is removed."

   I mean, DUH! Right?

1. 29  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 6/15/2007 1:54:39 PM

   Then again, if you have Exchange 2003 on a server, you can install Domino on it WITHOUT removing Exchange 2003.

   Does that mean it's easier to migrate in-place from Exchange to Domino than from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2007? Or at least, it's SAFER to make that move?

   I'm starting to see why Rove lost a couple of million emails.

1. 30  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 6/15/2007 3:29:44 PM

   @27 - What on Earth does an OS upgrade have to do with this discussion? I've never had to remove a previous version of Domino before I could install the new one. If I choose to change OS's or hardware of course I have to plan accordingly, but it's never been *required*.

1. 31  Paul Robichaux http://www.robichaux.net/blog | 6/15/2007 3:52:55 PM

   @30: Exchange 2003 only runs on Windows 2003 x86. Exchange 2007 only runs on Windows 2003 x64. AFAIK you can't do an in-place upgrade from x86 to x64 (at least, I've never tried). Thus, OS upgrades are a relevant part of talking about Exchange 2003 migrations, although every one I've done has taken place by building a new x64 server and moving mailboxes to it, then flattening the old server and upgrading it.

1. 32  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 6/16/2007 7:05:12 PM

   @31 - The point I'm trying to make is that's never happened with Domino. And even without the OS requirement I can't find any Exchange admin who does in-place upgrades even on the releases where it is possible. They all buy new hardware anyway, which seems horribly wasteful in every imaginable way.

   Finally, for what it's worth the place where I work is running an Exchange 2003 cluster on Windows 2003 x64. I wasn't aware it wasn't a support configuration, I'll be sure to make the higher-ups aware of it.

1. 33  Dave Madison  | 6/17/2007 9:59:56 PM

   @32. Well, if it is running it's a miracle the server hasn't blue-screen yet.

   { Link }

   Sure you aren't running 64-bit hardware and 32-bit Windows OS?

   As for the new hardware...isn't it only wasteful if the new hardware is the same as the existing hardware? Are you also suggestion the old servers are not put to use after they move Exchange off of it? If so, then yes it is wasteful.

1. 34  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/18/2007 6:35:15 AM

   @33 but server recycling as a result of an upgrade isn't something Domino customers have ever had to think about. In fact, Domino 7 went the opposite direction and improved performance in exactly the same hardware/OS/application configuration, sometimes by 50% or more.

   It's a different philosophy towards upgrading, and Microsoft customers, as usual, accept the strategy dictated to them.

1. 35  Richi Jennings http://richi.co.uk/ | 6/18/2007 1:42:42 PM

   Last week, we said we'd heard that Microsoft's support teams weren't willing to support customers who were running mixed networks of Exchange 2003 and 2007. This information came from several Exchange customers and a Microsoft Gold Partner, who is also an MVP (Microsoft Most Valued Professional). They'd been told that support for such mixed networks was only offered to those who were in the process of migration, and not for a a semi-permanent state of co-existence.

   Microsoft emphatically disputes this. For example, Elizabeth Scott, a manager in Microsoft's Exchange Customer Experience group, says...

   { Link }

1. 36  Dave Madison  | 6/18/2007 4:44:29 PM

   @33. So, SOME Exchange shops choose to buy new hardware when they upgrade and SOME Domino shops choose to run mission critical software on old old hardware. Some people choose to buy a new car every 3-4 years and others choose to drive inefficient vehichles into the ground. What's your point?

1. 37  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/18/2007 5:23:40 PM

   Such a Microsoft mindset to use an analogy that a server 3-4 years old is "inefficient" and being "driven...into the ground". Do you throw away your aluminum cans, too?

1. 38  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 6/18/2007 9:42:42 PM

   @36 - I've talked to nearly a dozen Exchange admins working in all kinds of environments. None of them has ever done an Exchange upgrade without purchasing new hardware. In-place upgrades of Exchange obviously can be done, I just can't find anyone who does it as their preferred upgrade scenario.

   By way of contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Domino admin who has ever purchased new hardware in conjunction with a Domino upgrade unless they're changing platforms or they have some seriously ancient hardware. As Nathan Freeman points out in another thread, it's so ridiculously simple that testing usually amounts to upgrading a single production box and seeing what breaks.

   So the point is IBM doesn't require customers to buy new operating systems and hardware to upgrade their collaboration infrastructure. To highlight what Ed said, IBM has even gone to great lengths to offer improved performance and scalability on existing hardware to further protect customer's investments. Let's see... 25% reduction in CPU and memory use for Domino 7, versus a requirement for 16TB addressable memory for Exchange 2007 (and it's still just e-mail).

   The Microsoft faithful just don't understand that not everyone wants to be on a forced 2 year refresh for their entire IT infrastructure.

1. 39  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 6/19/2007 5:28:10 AM

   @37 - Of course that's the MS mindset. Their stuff only runs on PC servers anyway. It's not like they've ever found themselves suggesting someone throw away an iSeries or a mainframe after 3 years.

   If you only ever built for junk hardware, you're probably going to start thinking all hardware is junk.

1. 40  Ivor McNamara  | 6/21/2007 10:26:52 AM

   This may not have much to do with the topic above, but I would like to make a point. I have been a Domino Admin for nearly 10 years and I have been an Exchange 2007 admin for the past 6 months. I think Domino bloggers that I read, are delusional when it comes to how superior Domino is to Exchange, when quite frankly it is just not true. I feel their is an ignorance among many Domino bloggers who seem determined to bash Exchange without knowing the real facts.

   Both platforms have advantages over the other. We are ending the process of migrating 20,000 users from Domino 6 to Exchange 2007. Most of our users (including me) find the Exchange client far better then the Domino client and this is Exchange/Outlooks BIG advantage over Domino. Afterall it's the users happiness with an email system that determines its success, despite what some techie Domino bloggers will have us believe.

   Blackberry works FAR superior on Exchange then it does Notes and anyone that says otherwise is kidding themselves (Quicker delivery of mail,easier synch with contacts, FAR superior unread/read marks, more third party products available for BES) . Licensing works out cheaper with Exchange in general also. These are clear advantages Exchange has over Domino..

   Having said all that I prefer Domino and always will as it will always be my bread and butter. Its a far more robust and scalable product then Exchange can ever be and that is Domino's big advantage.

   Personally, I just think its sad they way Domino bloggers always take cheaps shots when they don't really know the facts (and vice versa with Exchange Bloggers). Now that I have a grasp of both platforms I see how much rubbish is written by both sets of bloggers who are clearly ignorant of the facts.

   Maybe if Domino people weren't so in love with IBM Domino and Domino admins actually listened to what their users actually wanted they wouldn't be losing the email war. For me thats sad as Exchange will never be as good as Domino.

1. 41  TimB  | 6/21/2007 11:42:09 AM

   @40, Ivor, what is sad is that you didn't figure out in 10 years that email is 95% of what Exchange does and 5% of what Domino does. If email and an attractive "Exchange client" are the beginning and end of the value proposition for you -- then you're right where you need to be.

1. 42  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 6/21/2007 1:12:57 PM

   @40 - As TimB says, at the end of the day Exchange and Outlook are ONLY e-mail. If that's all you need or want as far as collaboration goes then by all means use it. As soon as you start adding on anything else (Microsoft Office, Sharepoint Server, etc) you're increasing cost, complexity and TCO.

   For what it's worth, I just switched from Domino to an all Microsoft environment and I'm chafing at the restrictions that come with it. I emphatically *DON'T* find the MS tools (except Visual Studio) to be in any way superior to Notes or Domino. I'm considering loading up Notes8 b3 just to see if anyone notices. :-p

1. 43  David Bell  | 6/21/2007 6:20:30 PM

   @40:

   This might determine user happiness....

   "Afterall it's the users happiness with an email system that determines its success, despite what some techie Domino bloggers will have us believe."

   And note that in a recent survey, well last year sometime, there were just as many unhappy Outlook users as Notes users. It is a fallacy that one outweighs the other and is all about what people are used to.

   But this has a far bigger impact on the bottom line....

   "Its a far more robust and scalable product then Exchange can ever be and that is Domino's big advantage."

   Now, where should every CFO/CIO worthy of the title put their money ?

1. 44  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 6/22/2007 6:14:15 AM

   @40 thanks for the comments. I think every company has different criteria for success, that's what makes the business world interesting and competitive.

   I also think there is general acknowledgment that the Notes user experience could benefit from improvement, thus Notes 8. But.

   Users are also happy when the e-mail system works. Why do you think so many of the mixed environments choose to go with Notes/Domino? applications is one reason, extensibility is another, security is another, but reliability is quite often top of the list. You admit that is a factor for Domino in your own comments. I could have the most beautiful classic car in the world, useless if the engine is dead.

   I'm also not sure whether your Blackberry comments are based on current experience. The current BES implementation on Domino is does all those things -- I get mail notification faster via my Pearl than I do in my Notes client. On the back-end, BES is more scaleable with Domino than with Exchange.

   We can agree to disagree on some of these points, but I emphatically don't take "cheap shots". Anything I know about Exchange deficiencies comes from industry analysts, current Exchange customers, Microsoft's own documentation. When their product changes, I change my competitive message. You don't hear me harping on the Web Storage System anymore, right? Just one example. I know what Exchange can and can't do -- not at a MCSE level, but more than I could ever really care to.