Welcome to TechNet Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Blogcast: Preparing Active Directory for Exchange 2003

Upgrading from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003

This is the fifth in the blogcast series for upgrading your Exchange Organisation.  The blogcast runs for 2 minutes and 41 seconds and runs through phase 2 of the deployment tools that you can use.  The blogcasts talks about running Forest prep and Domain prep and looking at the output logs created by these tools.   View the blogcast here...

Other blogcasts in this series:

1: Reviewing the Exchange Organistion

2:Creating the trust 

3: Assigning appropriate rights

4:Exploring Deployment tools and checklists

 

Published Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:16 PM by Eileen_Brown
Filed Under: , ,

Comments

Wednesday, October 12, 2005 12:52 PM by Katherine Coombs

# re: Blogcast: Preparing Active Directory for Exchange 2003

Hey Eileen - told you I'd post a comment...that wasn't *just* the wine talking :)

I'm curious as to why so many organisations are only now looking at (or getting around to) migrating off Exchange 5.5 and NT 4. The end of life has been well publicised and extended. Additionally, they are both n-2 technologies, so any reservations about moving to Active Directory should have been allayed.

I suspect/hope that most organisations have held discussions to determine what they're going to do, and concluded that they couldn't/wouldn't migrate.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that it's a major undertaking and can be daunting. I suspect that for smaller organisations it's even more so since they don't generally have the resources to throw at the problem like a larger organisation does. Hell, if it was too easy I'd be out of a job :) So my question is purely to satisfy my curiosity and is no way intended as a criticism.

Do you have any information from the field on this? There are numerous surveys out there but I'm interested in what MS has concluded, especially if there is a breakdown by sector or organisation size.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:34 PM by Blake Handler

# re: Blogcast: Preparing Active Directory for Exchange 2003

Katherine – after seeing that your fun food blog I want to remain on your “good side”. However, your amazement as to “why many organizations wait to long to upgrade” actually amazes me.

Most company are not in the IT business – and do not want to spend their resources on “chasing new technology.” Most managers still can not accept the fact that their computers should be replaced after only a few years.

Every organization I’ve shown Outlook Web Access on Exchange 2003 were rightfully impressed. But I had some companies say they’d wait for a better web interface.

Eileen has learned that I LOVE Microsoft and spend my working life supporting and defending their software. But just because the timing was right for Microsoft, doesn’t mean that the timing is right for some customers, nor mayl they have the additional budget allocated.

Here’s a recent comment from a client: "I’ve been writing letters to my clients since Word 2.0. I’ve purchase all the upgrades to Windows and Office, and I know I’ll get Office 12 when it comes out. But my Accounting responsibilities haven’t changed – and with the exception of now using mail-merge, I still simply write letters to my clients.

I wish Microsoft would give me the upgrades for free. . .and then the moment I click on a new feature that wasn’t in Word 2.0 THEN I should have to purchase my upgrade!"
Thursday, October 13, 2005 6:53 AM by Katherine Coombs

# re: Blogcast: Preparing Active Directory for Exchange 2003

Hi Blake,

I'm not amazed; I'm curious. I never said that I expect everyone to be off Ex5.5/NT4 because I don't realistically expect that. I do *hope* though that every legacy orgasiation has thought about making the move and decided not to. And it's that decision-making process that I'm interested in.

Your comment was one - valid - answer, namely if it's isn't broken why fix it. Just because Microsoft says "jump" doesn't mean that organisations are going to start limbering up, let alone ask how high, and I understand that. If my environment was pivotal to my business, relatively stable and well understood by my technical team, then I would be understandably hesitant to make any major changes, regardless of pressure from Microsoft. This would especially be true if my technical team were already stretched, or didn't have the skill set around the newer technology.

But there are a lot of valid reasons for moving, not just because Microsoft has released the next version and we might as well give that a go. Some customers shift because of the new features available: sometimes it's something as simple as cross-Admin group moves which convinces an organisation to move to Exchange Server 2003 even though their existing E2K environment is fautless.

Others upgrade purely because they have internally mandated that they have to remain on a supported platform. No one wants to hear PSS say "Dear God, Microsoft stopped supporting that platform 3 years ago!!" at 3am after pulling an all-nighter and exhausting all other avenues.

Other organisations upgrade purely because they can take advantage of their SA...OK that could just be me holding out hope that someone, somewhere has managed to get their head around the licensing structure!

So you've raised three good reasons you're personally aware of as to why customers don't move off their legacy platforms:
- availability of resources
- don't see the need
- don't see the technology as ready yet ("waiting for a better interface")

They're all logical answers and ones that immediately come to my mind, too. But I'd still be interested in seeing if MS has captured this information or has some statistics around this.

As for staying on my good side, well that's pitifully simple. One word for you: chocolate. :)

Kat
Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:46 AM by Eileen_Brown

# re: Blogcast: Preparing Active Directory for Exchange 2003

Kat,
There are numerous reasons why companies do and don't migrate varying from political, financial, emotional, inertia, fear and a plethora of other reasons. There's a lot to do with geography, size, sector, mitigating factors and things like that. You've got some good points though. Some companies are happy with what they have (the "good enough" argument) some don't feel that they have enough technical knowledge to migrate (hence all of our training workshops). Some companies don't wish to purchase the new software / hardware / services etc. And some just want to stay where they are, as it works, they can manage it, and they're comfortable with what they have (like a comfy pair of shoes).
Statistics? Well there are statistics on everything aren't there? Some large companies are behind the technology curve for adoption, and some are well ahead of the same curve. It's the same with small companies, some are innovators, some lag behind. So the answer is "It depends". it depends on personalities and technology awareness. A hard question to answer...
Was great to catch up the other evening. Some interesting conversations, not necessarily technology related either...!
Looking forward to the next one...

Blake,
Your comment about the Office 12 upgrade cost model is one thats been asked more than once. This brings the "software as a service" argument to the fore - and thats a whole new topic!
New Comments to this post are disabled