Throwing out a dumb idea

On July 20, 2012, in Exchange, by

Exchange 2013 public folders will be implemented as special mailboxes in the organization. Although public folder content isn’t replicated as it was in the old model, because it’s based in a mailbox, you can give this content the full availability and protection afforded by database availability groups (DAGs).

Now what have they done with Exchange?

So let me throw out a dumb question.  If the Exchange folks actually wanted to code an on premise box that was geared towards small businesses … an Exchange express version similar to how SQL express is coded up…what would you think is reasonable to do to have a “small enterprise” version of Exchange?

If you could do anything you wanted to, how would you code up Exchange?  With the assumption that you could not have it all, and had to make compromises, what would you say is a reasonable list of items that you’d consider must haves and then like to have but don’t have to have in terms of Exchange?



5 Responses to Throwing out a dumb idea

  1. Joe Raby says:

    I thought Public Folders were considered deprecated a while back anyway… They seemed to make that clear when they took away Public Folders as a requirement for certain features in Exchange 2010 when using Outlook 2007 & 2010.

    I remember when Exchange 2007 came out and everybody thought that they were already dead. Even prior to that, people were spelling an early demise. From the same publication back in 2004:

  2. Bill V says:

    Susan… Just want to throw something out too. Nothing you say to the SBS community will ever be construed as ‘dumb’. You help, throughts, criticism, and general everyday discussion keeps us informed. What more can we ask.

  3. David says:

    A good question. My first thought is that I cannot think of any feature that could be left out. I actually like some of the Enterprise CAL license features!

    But would could be left out are the apparent assumptions that it has to handle thousands of users and 100,000 e-mails a day. It could leave out the assumption that massive amounts of memory will be required. It could leave out Exchange Dynamic Buffer Allocation (DBA) that thinks it knows better than Windows in how to allocate memory. It could leave out huge database sizes. It could leave out managing multiple Exchange servers. It could leave out requiring its own virtual server.

    It would have to retain multiple accepted domains, mobile devices, anti-spam, multiple send connectors, and other features. I have used transport rules too. Ok, maybe Unified Messaging could go.

  4. SeanPT says:

    David nailed it for me. I could live without public folders too.

  5. EricE says:

    +2 for David’s post. The memory thing always galls me too. The comments about sizing for 100,000 emails a day are spot on…