Talk:Microsoft Exchange Server

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
 
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Request: Critisisms[edit]

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

Sure First thing is that Exchange does not only 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 (talkcontribs) 17:38, January 25, 2007

Please adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view and you need a source for all of that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Intro NPOV[edit]

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)

In at least one place, the Key Improvements section could add clarity to Microsoft ad copy rather than merely repeating it. For example, the "Protection" bullet point refers to features which, upon closer examination, require add-ons that are not included in the basic Exchange license. I.e. antispam/antivirus both require Microsoft Forefront Security for Exchange Server. --ewilen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewilen (talkcontribs) 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Current opening paragraph has a massively anti-Microsoft bias... Whilst a large bias either way is bad, surely a PR piece from Microsoft, if clearly labelled as such, would be better than someone's personal opinion? Of course, a neutral text would be ideal but seems to be hard to obtain for this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.65.126 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

External Link to Exchange 2007 Preview site[edit]

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)

Competitors Section Overcrowded[edit]

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)

Exchange & Domino comparison study[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:47, January 25, 2007

Exchange server 5 and Xenix[edit]

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)

History section[edit]

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)

Emphatically agree. An introduction should explain what the product's specific purpose is, but it does not. Moreover, any information about the usefulness of Exchange is either completely missing, or shrewdly hidden, or camouflaged anywhere in the article, something that Microsoft does often when describing their products. (Question: was this article written by Microsoft employees?) Also, its inner workings are left to the reader's imagination, based on its "email server software" nature. --AVM (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


"Exchange Server 2003 (v6.5) debuted on September 28, 2003. ... The June 2, 2003, release of Exchange Server 2003" So which is it? Inconsistent dates. 67.91.148.135 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


I couldn't agree more, yet I lack the level of expertise in wikipedia to implement this. Could someone assist?CecilWard (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the history section, which is long, be hived off into it's own articleCecilWard (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hosted Exchange[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 17:38, August 1, 2007


There are some disadvantage as with any service. To start with, the data resides in the cloud. This has gotten less and less of an issue, with more and more of our information being stored online. Another disadvantaged is the lack of extensive customization of the system. I have to disc agree with the notion the people who host lack technical knowledge. Business looks at their bottom line and if keeping a 100K salary Exchange Server administrator in the company is hurts the bottom line, then maybe they will decide to host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.102.28 (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

What standards does it use?[edit]

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)

I am in contact with people using Free Software to read their email on a MS Exchange 2007 server. It appears clearly that the standards are not respected. For instance, return receipts are automatically sent by the server if the IMAP client issues a FETCH command to the server. No matter what is answered on the Return Receipt dialogue. If the user does not want to send a return receipt, it will be sent anyway as the client issues the fetch command. Microsoft is aware of this feature, but correcting it is not among the priority and will be done within the next 2 years, in the next version of Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange Mailbox modifies the headers of the mails that are stored in it, and sometimes the body of the messages -- spaces are sometimes added, which may bother ascii signatures. I do not think this is a standard behaviour. I was assured that the Exchange Server followed the standards described in the RFCs though. Randomredux (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

While I read wikipedia alot, I haven't a clue about the various in's and out's of it so I'm posting this here: Why does "Mail Exchange Server" come up with "Microsoft Exchange Server", surely Microsoft does not have a monopoly on Mail Exchange Servers? Perhap's someone who knows what they are doing could alter this so that instead "Mail Exchange Server" points at "Mail Delivery Agent", "MX Record" or something less proprietry than one corporation's implementation of a generic internet server. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.88.21 (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Outlook Picture for exchange 2010???[edit]

Why is there a picture of Microsoft outlook under the exchange 2010 category??? I have a picture of Exchange 2010 but lack the knowledge to set it up. GO GO WIKI PEOPLE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.117.107 (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro image[edit]

is it just me or the intro image ridiculously big? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.255.74.11 (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Since removed. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

re: "is written like an advertisement." tag[edit]

Can we remove the following from the article? diff -

This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use {{db-spam}} to mark for speedy deletion. (February 2011)

Reasoning: The Template:Advert tag carries no justification, and was done by an anonymous contributor 59.182.62.111.

The only offence I can see is that the article uses the name "Microsoft".

NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I vote: Remove "Template:advert" tag - NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for structuring...[edit]

  1. Give a clearer description of what Exchange does in the lede. This is where the non-technical layman is going to get oriented, so saying something like "Exchange processes the incoming email messages for all accounts on that server/host. It provides administrative tools for maintaining user accounts and shared data (such as organization-wide address books), stores the messages and data until downloaded or deleted, and provides access to the messages/calendars/etc. for the end users" could help bridge that gap. Someone who has actually worked directly w/ Exchange can clarify what falls within that part of the architecture. The rest of the article is very technology-specific, with lots of jargon, trademarks, and standards names floating around, so do my grandma a favor and help her out here.
  2. Point section on Exchange 1.0 to Microsoft Exchange Client / Windows Messaging and merge that information there... since this seems to be a single client-side package... and it will be clearer to disambiguate up front instead of spreading the info among 3 articles.
  3. In the History section, consider using infoboxes (Template:Infobox_software? similar to Template:Infobox_web_browser?) or some other consistent method to distinguish the different generations/major releases of Exchange in the History area and list what OS's and architectures the server package will work on. This would also allow a bridge for the user to find clients that would work w/ each version via that protocol.
  4. Consider listing which protocols (transfer, messaging, storage, calendars) were supported in each version. This is kinda sorta in the text but in many cases it is not clear where support starts and stops. Making it an explicit thing (either including in infobox or as a sentence or two in the subsection) would help clarify this greatly.
  5. Remove historical info from non-history areas. This should make updating much easier as it won't require talking around and around about what worked with what when.
  6. Create sections or subsections that reflect major aspects of the current version--e.g. clustering, security, clients, etc.--so that relevant points don't jump all over the known universe.
  7. As current tag says, include references where possible. Trade magazines may be useful in this regard.
  8. Remove most of books and external links, or convert to references, or annotate where useful.

I don't have much time but might skim through and see what I can re-word or clarify.

- from someone who uses wikipedia and occasionally edits but doesn't mess around w/ setting up an account 76.178.145.26 (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree the article requires complete rebuild and weight-off.
#2 is offered to take off to the new page, since "Exchange Server" gives us a clue - it's all about server and there should not be that lots of details about MS Mail client, just a brief but sharp points on client differences/targers.
#3 For that one I'm going to create a separate article describing (in chart table format) the exact versions, releases, dates, codenames, subversions, SPs, etc. I have all the sources and data on that.
#4 Microsoft usually do not separate Protocols and Clients discussion from each other, since most of email protocols exist in Exchange strictly for client communication. So I'd prefer to extract this info spinned out all over the article into exacly one section by the meaning of a chart table or list.
#5 Yep. 1. Functional description, 2. Entire history digested, 3. version functionalities and progress, 5. clients briefly .6 Exch Online as a new vision of tech 7. see also, references, links. How's that scenario? MaxMVP (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

License[edit]

I feel like there is too much talk about license and there shouldn't be. It feels like we are explaining how to purchase Microsoft Products. If I were to describe printer form HP would I be talking about license. Probably not. Please feel free to discuss this as It think wikipedia is gotten too much into explaining Microsoft licenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.102.28 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

There is not much else we can discuss. Licensing info is a rather important point in software articles.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree but it feels like we are a store — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.102.28 (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so - it isn't like that the whole article is about the licensing.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Example of not high quality info - too much technical specs for a software that is dead. Is it just me? Exchange Server 2003 is available in two versions, Standard Edition and Enterprise Edition. Standard Edition supports up to two storage groups (with one of the storage groups, called the recovery storage group, being reserved for database recovery operations) and a maximum of 2 databases per storage group. Each database is limited to a maximum size of 16GB.[8] Beginning with the release of Service Pack 2, Standard Edition allows a maximum database size of 75 GB, but only supports 18 GB by default; larger sized databases have to be updated-in with a registry change.[9] Enterprise Edition allows a 16 TB maximum database size, and supports up to 4 storage groups with 5 databases per storage group for a total of 20 databases per server.[10]

Exchange Server 2003 is included with both Microsoft Small Business Server 2003 Standard and Premium editions and is 32-bit only, and will not install on the various 64-bit versions of Windows Server 2003.

We don't remove information because it is outdated. Edition comparisons!=licensing.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.102.28 (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Or more specifically, outdated info about a current piece of software is changed/removed but current info about an outdated piece of software is kept.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Testing signature. Got a message by the bot about not putting a signature. --212.50.102.28 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Article accuracy is questionable[edit]

Scanning the article (I was looking for something else) I noticed inaccuracies and important missing info. I was a Windows support engineer from 95 launch to Server 2003; yes Microsoft has deleted much of the corroborating information from their web servers however I would be delighted to upload (formerly public) Microsoft documentation if one would wish to verify.

  • Xenix was developed by Microsoft however software development from DOS to Win3.x was on PC emulators on PDP-11 machines. Microsoft doesn't admit this but login authentication was to Novell Servers, and Microsoft Mail was running on Lanman Servers. The Win95 registration option connected through MSN and required IPX protocol (usually installed by default in Win95). Xenix (Unix predated IP) often ran on IPX.
  • Missing information about Microsoft Backoffice Server 4.0 and Microsoft Small Business Server which wraps Exchange in a standalone package. More sold than discrete Exchange Server.
  • Exchange 2007 did come as a 32-bit beta and later non-expiring trial version ("not for production use"). Download was available through at least beginning of 2012. The copy I have runnong on Server 2008 32-bit (MSDN availability) still recieves Windows Updates.
  • Microsoft BPOS in 2010 was still running on Exchange 2007 Server back end. The Migration documents available to BPOS (and Office 365 beta) included support for Exchange 5.5 migration to Microsoft Online but noted that Exchange 5.0 or earlier was not supported.
  • "Exam 70-075: Implementing and Supporting Microsoft Exchange Server 4.0" notes (and on CNET archive) "Microsoft Windows NT Server 3.51 or later" whereas 1993 was NT 3.1 release only.
  • Exchange history seems to be a plagarized copy of http://www.aurelp.com/tag/microsoft-exchange-server-history/

Shjacks45 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)