Microsoft Exchange 2010

With the launch of Exchange 2010 supposedly only days or weeks away, it’s perhaps time to ask the question, who is going to use it?

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that now the work is done on Exchange 2010 and it has the sign off, that it will be released soon. Especially as the Microsoft Exchange Connections coming up in November 9-12th in Las Vegas. A betting man wouldn’t put money on it not happening…

From the feedback seen so far Exchange 2010 is an excellent improvement on the previous versions. It offers much in the way of security, compliance and reliability. But it does come with the inevitable Microsoft complications. Bearing in mind the complexity and expense of migrating to Exchange 2010, it begs the question, who is going to do it?

The economy has yet to recover and confidence has yet to be instilled. Money is still tight and purse strings locked firmly shut. So who is going to spend a considerable amount of time and money on an infrastructure they probably already have?

Organizations who already have a version of Exchange are going to need new operating systems, in Server 2008, probably new hardware to run it. Considerable new IT infrastructure to support the new Exchange features and a team to install, configure, then manage it.

Likely adopters are going to be those companies who have a bit of money in the IT budget and who are on versions of Exchange 2003 and below. They are most likely to be prepared for renewal or the software, hardware and training needs that Exchange 2010 demands.

Not only are there significant hardware and software demands for a roll out of this platform, there are bound to be problems with integrating it with third party software and solutions. Those organizations with firewalls and anti-virus are going to be extra careful about integrating the new system. Also those custom applications that interface with exchange may need to be rewritten in order to work.

We in IT tend to give Microsoft some grief about how difficult their programs are to integrate into existing infrastructures. It can be a bit unfair though as I’m sure they don’t set out to cause trouble. They want to make things better, but by doing so they break a few rules and existing protocols.

Time will tell whether the move to Exchange 2010 will be a rising tide or a trickling stream. I would guess it would be somewhere in the middle, but only once the economy and overall prospects have picked up and those purse strings loosened a bit. After all, if the current version is working okay, why upgrade right now?

One of the most surprising aspects of Exchange Server 2010 is the lack of backward compatibility offered. While those of us in the Information Technology market can’t afford to look back, or stay stuck in the past, it is unrealistic to expect organizations to upgrade their whole infrastructure for one application, however important it might be.

Historically, just about everything Microsoft made was backward compatible to one degree or another. On average their software was at least useable with the two previous versions of the release. While the newer features and benefits weren’t realized until we were up to date, at least the platform and its inherent improvements were able to be utilized.

After saying all that, there is a little bit of backward compatibility built in, since the latest beta release there is now the ability to co-exist with Server 2003 and Exchange 2007 with Service Pack 2. When the first beta came out it was Server 2008 only, which annoyed a lot of the IT community and threatened to marginalize the product. That’s a lot to ask at any time, let alone during a recession where budgets are tight and taking risks in unheard of.

However, the Exchange 207 Service Pack 2 was released yesterday so will be able to be further tested with the final beta of Exchange 2010 for those who have the patience.

The in-place upgrade that is now available is either a blessing or a curse. While it’s much more convenient for small businesses or home users to upgrade software, for the larger organization this isn’t the case. Upgrading means downtime and the risk of incompatibility with existing applications. Often it is much safer, and easier to upgrade a machine anew and integrate it into the network all shiny and fresh. A well planned refresh of the infrastructure would allow an organization to take down part of its system and do fresh installs while the existing nodes chugged away as normal. Once the new servers were ready they would be connected together in isolation before being introduced back into the wild. Doing it this way would enable rigorous testing before go live and prevent any system errors or incompatibilities affecting live service.

Now Microsoft have enabled Exchange 2010 to play nicely with Server 2003 it should become more acceptable. Rather than having to upgrade the entire server farm, only those servers hosting Exchange 2010 will need to be upgraded. This will save thousands of dollars when it comes to deployment time, and a much quicker turnaround when it comes to installation. Upgrading twenty servers instead of two hundred is a much better prospect for even the most ardent Microsoft haters.

From what we have seen so far, and with the changes announced in the final beta, the positives of upgrading to Exchange 2010 outweigh the negatives. I don’t see anyone rushing out to deploy it as soon as it’s released, but it’s a lot more likely it will be deployed than it was a month ago.