If I'm wrong, I welcome an informed source to say so and reveal the complete and unfiltered decision process for why a working feature with positive benefits to many was removed. Not that that would ever happen of course, because an informed source would be prevented from airing anything with negative public relations consequences. In short we'll never know the full story.
As for "don't buy the product if you don't like it", that kind of thinking on the part of a vendor results in fewer customers. Probably they're thinking/hoping that those more impacted - small(er) businesses - will migrate to Exchange cloud services hosted by datacenters where the cost is reduced. I'm still suspicious of the whole cloud thing as a new way of life, particularly when the connection to the cloud is lost or the cloud has an unexpected PEBKAC moment. Remember Google going offline the other day? http://www.pcworld.com/article/164946/google_outage_lesson_dont_get_stuck_in _a_cloud.html Carl -----Original Message----- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:55 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing "The thing they're eliminating is a bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of regression testing with each new release." Do you have any actual information from informed sources on this? Or this just your backside driving? Maybe the code is shared with RIS grovelling which got changed in Win2k8 to SIS service. Or maybe there are other challenges to getting it to work. Given Microsoft's bending over backwards to keep previous features there, I doubt it's just "we don't want a programmer to work on it" - there has got to be more to it IMHO. Whether that's analysis of scalability complaints (disk I/O perf in current versions of Exchange), analysis of where disk storage is going (disk space in the cheap category that has decent I/O - i.e. SATA 2/3 disks that kill old SCSI disks) or whatever. I'd check out www.storagereview.com to see how current SATA2 disks kill older SCSI and even SAS disks perf wise. Whilst the argument might not be clear-cut right now, in 3/4/5 years time I think the situation will be clear given the current trends. You'll be able to buy a 10TB SATA4 disk that will provide better IOPS than a current SAS disk for far less cost, and sending a 3MB email will be a rounding error in your disk storage calculations. But, as always, if you don't like it, don't buy the product. And Microsoft may change its mind. Cheers Ken ________________________________________ From: Carl Houseman [c.house...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:44 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing As for memory/CPU, does eliminating SIS mean lower RAM or slower CPU requirements for the product? Doubtful. The thing they're eliminating is a bunch of tricky code the programmers don't like and which needs a lot of regression testing with each new release. You won't find anyone to admit that, but it's more than likely a major factor in the decision, with a nod from the bean counters who are already projecting savings from reduced staffing. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
