The glass is indeed 1/2 full, not 1/2 empty

On February 24, 2005, in Rants, by

On the blog comments today comes a passionate post that I’d just like to respond to because it points to a Microsoft partner that I came across once upon a time…the glass is 1/2 empty partner….

Scott in the blog comments rants that SBS is a “bait and switch” because it’s limited to 16 gigs of Exchange storage space under all versions of SBS and to go to the next level of 16 terabytes you have to fork out for the Exchange Enterprise version which is like $4,000.

First off, while I agree with Scott that there’s a need out here for a “mid” sized SKU for Exchange… dude, you DO realize that SBS includes Exchange “Standard” and thus even if you buy standalone products you are stuck with the 16 gig even at the Exchange standard version.

Exactly what “are” you installing for your small business clientele if you “are” a Microsoft partner.  Hopefully not 25 user peer to peer networks?

You sir, are exactly the type of Microsoft partner that I ran into when I was looking for one back in the SBS 2000 days.  “SBS is too limiting” they said.  “You’ll outgrow it”…. they said.

Guess what dude… I’m still on it. 

Yeah 16 gigs is too limiting..but blasting my blog comments isn’t going to move any mountains.  Making a calm argument that we’re doing will.

And Scott what are you a blog spammer tonight or something?  You’ve blog commented the same rant three times.  Enough.  You’ve said what you’ve had to say, and if you post one more comment I will remove it.

The glass is half full and we’re asking for a refill.

P.S. Do remember that every gig of more Exchange storage is potential for liability, legal issues, and disclosures.  It increases your business risks to be that much of a email hog.  Keep in mind that all those terrabytes are discoverable.  Sometimes forcing people to keep neat and tidy mailboxes “is” a good thing.  Just ask Enron, Arthur Andersen and Martha about email and courts…they might disagree with you on mail retention policies.


6 Responses to The glass is indeed 1/2 full, not 1/2 empty

  1. Carlos says:


    I have to ½ agree and ½ disagree with you.

    I agree that anyone who has an SBS “worthy” network and is not using SBS because of its limitations is being foolish. SBS is a wonderful platform that is affordable. The so called limitations of SBS are very reasonable ones; I mean how many small businesses truly need an AD forest with more than one domain? The other “limitations” follow the same logic – so for anyone who doesn’t get it “Hello its called SBS – as in SMALL BUSINESS”.

    On the other hand – there is a real need for more than a 16GB email store of mail even for small businesses. Now I know that sounds ridiculous but hear me out here. Have you ever dealt with the Automotive industry? If you have not then let me give you some information that may be of interest. The automotive industry anymore requires some incredibly deep documentation process under the now defunct QS9000/ISO9000 certification process. I say defunct because there is a standard out there (the name/number escapes me right now). That incorporated QS9000/ISO9000 and added even more mundane requirements of the company that wishes to be certified under the new standard. If you are Automotive and you are not certified under this standard you can kiss your automotive contract goodbye.

    This standard requires retention of all documents – including email. For my in-office folks this is no big deal, I just force them to use PST files to store their archive email inside their “My Documents” witch is incidentally re-directed to the server. This solution is not a possible one for the office “road warriors” that tote everything they have and the kitchen sink with them when they hit the road. This is because even though I can set their “My Documents” to synchronize for off-line use the PST file is incapable of being synchronized and without that file being backed up to the server and if something where to happen to a laptop while on the road then we are SOL without the email archives required by the standard.

    So now I am stuck with a handful of users at each of my automotive customers that HATE me because I force them to run a BAT file that copies their bloated PST files from their laptops to the server every time they shut down witch can be a very lengthy process depending on the size of the many PST files and if they remembered to hook into the LAN via their Ethernet cable of if they forgot and stayed on the wireless network. If we had a larger Mailbox store I could allow said users to keep their ungodly sized mail inside their mailbox and skip the “copy the PST files” process.

    With just a little help from MS we could get the mail store in the next version of SBS to be expanded to something a bit more in the lines of the current technology – say 64GB? I am not looking for the enterprise level mail store but certainly something that I can use for the road warriors at each one of these companies to allow them to take their mail on the road and not have to go through some unreal process of synchronization.

  2. Susan says:

    Carlos, I TOTALLY agree with you that there’s a "mid" Exchange product just DYING to be built. Shame on the Exchange team for not having the foresight when they were building Exchange 2003 to see that our love of email, our spam issues, and now days, our regulation and compliance issues means that 16 gig is "nothing".

    This truly is the "make it or break it" point in SBS. If you are a firm that can live with 16 gigs of mail, this "is" a killer app. If not, get out the checkbook folks.

  3. Stevereno says:

    Don’t forget the Public folder is good for another 16gb of storage and you can set permissions to the folders there to limit access.

    PST files were created for local drive storage and according to Microsoft they are not meant to be used on the network drives. That being said – we do use them on the network and back them up so thay can be restored when they fail.

    PST files serve a purpose I guess but get flaky after they reach 1 gig. The liability of uncontrolled pst files all over the place could get expensive if you ever had to produce them all for a discovery in legal matters. Just something to think about when advising customers.

  4. Bill Leeman says:

    Carlos, There’s a workaround that will allow you to snyc PST’s as well. Here’s the link,

  5. Ed Daniel says:

    Wow, some real frustration or not so real frustration being vented here.

    Can I ask a question though – do we wait for Microsoft to solve the problem or do we trust 3rd parties to innovate on our behalf?

    I suppose it could even be more of a marketing question than a technical one and I guess Susan already knows I work for a company that represents such a solution.

    What do SBSers do, do they trust 3rd party players enough to get in there and sort the problem out or do they wait?

    Just curious.

  6. Kohn says:

    Hi Guys,

    I´m a german admin and I´m wondering who has the thruth in the "16Gig-Limit" question?

    A German ex mvp (now MS Expert) writes in his blog that the 16 Gig Limit also applies for the public folders.

    Sorry thats only a german site but perhaps some of you speaks german:

    So what´s the truth 16Gig-Limit or 32Gig-Limit??

    cu Kohn