FWIW I tend to agree about feature set. If there's an architectural reason requiring removal then so be it, provided the additional benefits offset the feature (perhaps compression?). Or if nobody is using it (why MS maintains a WordStar compatibility mode in Word 2007 is beyond me).
But removing a feature that is delivering some benefit and known to be used in the wild, when your shiny new architecture may have allowed for it, just serves to alienate people. I don't know if there are architectural decisions that could have preserved it or not, but Brian's "one DB per spindle and one set of object tables per MB", leads me to believe it may have been difficult to achieve. It will be interesting to see if the average compression ratio across a statistically significant slice of users is greater than the average SIS ratio... even if it does bite some people to lose SIS. -sc -----Original Message----- From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:42 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing But in this case, we're not talking about a new product--we're talking about a new version of an existing product. We already know how people use it; many use it to store or distribute files. In our case, we're not talking big files. I have a 10 MB limit. But even relatively small files, when multiplied times 500 mailboxes, add up to a lot of storage space if a deduplication mechanism isn't used. -----Original Message----- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing I agree in general. But I can understand the opposite view - people write the product first and release it. It then gets used in ways that are unintended. Now, in Microsoft's case, there are commerical imperatives that stop them from changing the product to suit actual usage. But on the other hand, there are people who followed the release guidance and will get screwed if MS changes the product. So it's some lose-lose catch 22 situation. Cheers Ken ________________________________________ From: John Hornbuckle [john.hornbuc...@taylor.k12.fl.us] Sent: Friday, 29 May 2009 11:13 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Amusing This says so much right here... It's a common trap IT people fall into. We tell people that the way they want to use the technology isn't the right way to use it. Huh? Why not? Technology exists to serve humans--not vice versa. I agree that e-mail is an efficient means of distributing and storing files. But the fact is, that's how many people WANT to use e-mail. It's how they use e-mail at home (encouraged by services like GMail, no less). Why should we force them to change to adapt to the technology rather than designing technology that adapts to them? John Hornbuckle MIS Department Taylor County School District 318 North Clark Street Perry, FL 32347 www.taylor.k12.fl.us -----Original Message----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:09 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Amusing They want to use email the way they want to. And why are we telling them they're wrong? ~ 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/> ~ ~ 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/> ~
