A whole blog entry and seven-minute video justifying why Microsoft believes that rip-and-replace migrations are the only way to move from Exchange version to version. A fascinating explanation of why this approach is necessary in order to write new features, take advantage of hardware, and to adapt to user behavior.
[W]hy did the Exchange team not include an in-place upgrade option in the product in recent versions? Is it that the Exchange team is filled with a bunch of lazy developers or are there valid reasons for doing this?One fine example of the spin:
Given the rapidly improving hardware and the fact that the most expensive component (storage) wears out. Regular hardware refreshes in the order of every 3-4 years are needed. Doing both a major-version in-place upgrade followed by a migration to new hardware is a model that combines the worst of both approaches
My response: Apparently we really do live on different planets.
Link: Microsoft/Geek Out With Perry: Why Migrations Instead of In-Place Upgrades? > (Thanks, Trevor)