I recently (hopefully recently, my last post took two years to get published so I'm not sure when this one will go out, LOL) posted one of my typical light-hearted looks into life at Microsoft (it was about how office space is allocated, read it here). Although it was irrelevant to virtually everything, it elicited many interesting responses, including people complaining (I think) about us having it too good here. No argument there. Actually, I was intentionally portraying the situation in a negative light so as not to upset everyone too much. In reality, we all have 1000 square foot corner window offices (our office buildings were designed by MC Escher) that overlook a lake or mountains (our choice), with a private bathroom, a fold out bed for nap time, and a full service kitchen. But never mind that. There were also many comments on the feature set of Exchange 2007 (rather irrelevant to the pointless topic, but important nevertheless). They were mostly not liking certain feature take-backs in the release, particularly around the administrative GUI. I just want everyone to know that despite the light tone here, we do take these comments seriously. Let me assure you that the discussion that my post prompted generated many a transaction log on our corporate Exchange servers!! Some of you that have been reading our blog for a long time may have noticed that we have taken a very open position regarding the comments that we get on our blog posts. I believe that there were only 2 or 3 cases when we deleted a comment and that was because of some really inappropriate language. We want to keep your comments there, both positive and negative. We read every single one of them and respond to many. We do want to encourage you to post your opinions and ideas, but we do have ask something: if there is an area that is very upsetting to you or where you think we made a mistake, we ask that you would offer criticism about the product, and not the people who work on it. Also, since we actively look to these comments as evidence to make potential changes in our products, we again ask that you would provide specific, actionable feedback on our product. In other words, please explain what it is that bothers you and why it bothers you. What are you trying to accomplish that you can't? Sometimes the comments are obvious (we totally and completely get it that you need more GUI and it's unfortunate we weren't able to get as much of it in to E2K7 RTM as we'd hoped, but we hope that SP1 works better for you there), but sometimes they are not, so the more you explain your user scenario, the better a chance we'll be able to eventually do something about it. In closing, I'd just like to point out the obvious that every product that has ever shipped anywhere has had to make trade-offs between shipping on time, shipping with quality, and shipping with the right features. For Exchange 2007, we debated long and hard about features that we would ship. We had to balance investments that we wanted to make into the Exchange code base to allow for future innovation (would people be interested in a description of those architectural bets? Or if we posted it, would we just get more "you should have done <my feature foo>" instead? :), feature cuts we felt we had to make to get the quality we wanted to ship with and the timeline we felt it needed to ship in. We knew some of the cuts would be painful, and we have addressed many of the larger issues in SP1 (some posts on this coming your way, by the way!). Judging from the early success of Exchange 2007 sales, the many positive reviews we've garnered, and most customer feedback, we seem to have made some pretty good choices here. But obviously - not perfect. We always need to try to do better. I look forward to the responses this post may receive, and rest assured there are lots of people in Exchange who will be paying attention to them, as with all our posts on this blog. Thank you for coming back and caring enough to comment! - Jon Avner, Nino Bilic
Blog Post
60 Comments
- DeletedI am an IT consultant that has been upgrading Exchange 200X customers to Exchange 2007 customers for some time. So the feed back below is what I am hearing from mulitple sources.
- Obivously the seperation of Exchange and ADUC is counter intuitive for customers and they aren't happy about having to switch between two consoles to fully manage their users. While there may have been techinical limitations that forced you to split back out into two consoles, we at the very least woudl like to hear it is a design goal to re-unite them when Windows 2008 ADUC supports powershell (asuming it ever does).
- The lack of server and mailbox store policies makes if VERY hard for large enviornments to set and enforce consistent management of the systems. Currently yes we can run a powersheel script to set the mailbox size limits and maintenance periods, but that leaves the door open for make a change and take the system "out of spec". The policies kept people from making accidental mistakes.
I personally see this a step backwards in regards to automating new database and server deployments (drag and drop onto a policy was awesome).
- The loss of the ability to see what mailboxes, their sizes, recent access methods (including client versions), and the LATENCY was a huge pain for 2 seperate customers who leaned on that quote often.
- The message tracking system has take a step backwards. I just tracked a message from one server to another, and I couldn't make heads or tails of the CSV style lines of text being output on teh screen (after being forced to run a wizard?). In 2003 I could simply say "see customer, right there the email was handed off", now I can simply say the system processed the message somehow.
- Being able to see the Recovery Storage Group object, and make post creation directory changes was a hugh PITA for one customer who had a large number of databases and seemed to be constantly doing restores, and not being able to visually manipulate the RSG, and eing forced to take a wizard's word for it really slowed them down.
There are other comments customers have been made, but the overall resounding frustration is that there was a lot of functionality in the 2003 console that is missing in the 2007 SP1 console. They understand that Powershell can help them get some of the data they were looking for (like mailbox information for users in a specific database), but as one admin put it recenlty "Why did Microsoft decide I needed to become a Powershell user to be able to do the things I could do just fine in the 2003 GUI?
And I would offer if doing some of these tasks is just an easy powershell script, then please by all means add the functionality to the GUI for your less savy end user admins as you already have the backend.
Dan Sheehan
MCSE 2003 + Messaging - DeletedFirst off, I agree with JohnCee53. Powershell is not exactly my cup of tea, although once you get the hang of it, it's pretty powerful.
On another note, has anyone found a way to remove conference room bookings from a user that is no longer with the company (account disabled and deleted)? We use direct booking from resource mailboxes which is working great except when the organizer is terminated. Then their booking just hangs out in the conference room........over time, you can see how this would cause an issue. We've been able to use Powershell to remove canceled meetings, so there is less clutter. But how do we programaticaly remove entries from organizers that are gone?
Thanks. - DeletedWho in Microsoft thinks that we want to go to a Unix-like command window to do our work? We use Microsoft because of "Windows" and GUIs, not for the command line extreme basics. If I wanted to use a command line to do my work, I'd install Unix, or Linux. Get it together, Microsoft!! You broke a lot of fine 3rd party tools, such as Hyena, that allowed me to do most of my work under a single interface. Now I have to learn a new scripting language, a new command shell, and satisfy upper management at how well Exchange 2007 works, and hope they don't throw a request at me that is going to require spending a week or more burrowed into the bowels of Microsoft support trying to dig up answers!
(Whining mode = Off) - DeletedI agree with Martijn with #2, #3, and #4. I'd love to see some type of archiving integrated with a management interface through the EMC alongside the other roles or through the toolbox. I'd also love to be able to somehow force quotas so user quotas are overridden depending on the mailbox they belong to.
- Deleted1) ADUC integration
2) An e-mail archiving solution. For example: archive all mail to a dedicated archive database or file structure with search possibilities.
3) Some level of SLA management on serversdatabases.
4) An Exchange administrator should be able to force mailbox quotas on database level so that exceptions on mailbox level are not possible anymore. - DeletedFor those of us trying to do geo-clustering, how about a way to restrict cross-physical-site communication?
I'd rather not have a MBX server use a HUB server in the remote datacenter if possible since the message it just sent over the WAN may just be going right back to the MBX server it came from over the WAN again. I know we can configure a static list of HUBs to use on each MBX server, but this has issues too; 1) We lose automatic failover to the other HUBs if the ones in the first site go down. 2) You'd have to reconfigure the list every time your MBX server failed over to the other datacenter.
How about weighting them in some way so we can say ... "Use HUB1, HUB2, HUB3 with a cost of 10, then HUB4, HUB5, HUB6 with a weight of 20." Some way of doing this will help us cut down on unnecessary WAN traffic between sites.
With SP1 installed is it ok to use CNAMEs for MBX--> HUB now in a static list? I could then do something like put the local HUBs by name in the list, then put a round robin CNAME as the last entry. If I had 8 HUB servers (4 physical per site, same AD site) then I'd have 5 entries, 4 real and one CNAME which round robins to the 4 IPs in the remote phsyical site. In theory I could drop the unneeded WAN traffic by 75% this way. At least I think so...
Thank you. - DeletedExmon was a great tool for determining who was using Outlook in Online mode versus Cached mode. Everything says that Exmon was incorporated into the troubleshooting assistant, however this piece of information still alludes me. Is there another place I should look for this information, or is it another thing that cannot be found in Exchange 2007?
- DeletedThanks for the response on the OAB generation and dgoldman's blog, but I'd already seen that. That is a manual fix for a process that I would think would be autocorrecting in a redundant scenario. We did use that to get things working, but I'd consider it a workaround, not a solution. In a highly available scenarion, that should fix itself.
Another suggestion, probably a bug. We've noticed that if someone creates a new appointment and unchecks the reminder box (so no 15 minute reminder should be given to recipients), the box is re-checked when the recipients get the meeting (regardless of their default settings).
Not sure if there's already a fix in the owrks for this, but it's generating some support calls from those who hate reminders. FYI, we are still running OL2003 clients. - DeletedI'd like some clarity on the shared mailbox solution. We're a company that trades under a few different brand names and when communicating with the customer we must always present ourseleves as that brand.
I've yet to see any best pratices for this. In exchange 2000 we setup a bunch of mail enabled public folders (sales, customer services and order processing) for our first client for e-mails to be sent into/from and have replicated this structure ever since. I think I've currently got around 200+ mail enabled pf's now!
An ideal solution for me would be the ability to setup a shared mailbox* that I could then assign users/groups to, with that mailbox then being accessible by said user with no action on their part.
Another thing is that I get asked all the time if someone can send an e-mail from their.name@aspecificclient.whatever, to which the answer is no you must send as one of the pf's for that company. Is it going to be possible to give the ability to users to send from any of their defined e-mail addresses?
Oh and while I'm on pf's can we have the ability to manage the client permissions from the pf management tool? Or are we destined to keep a copy of the old system management console around for this purpose?
*Intrestingly, when I was trying to get a disabled users mailbox to shift from the Exchange 2000 server to the Exchange 2007 mailbox store it came up as a 'shared mailbox' in the EMC once transfered. Can anyone enlighten me on why this happened? I was messing with the mailbox security in ADUC before I moved it so maybe I did something I wasn't supposed to do... - DeletedAfter having my perfectly accurate and legitimate criticisms being redacted from this website, I am crystal clear about this whole process.
Dear Exchange developers...meh.