Microsoft Online Services

[Pastiche]

What does Google apps cost?

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What does Google apps cost?

$50 per user per year. Looks cheaper than Microsoft.

[Azure]

^^^yeah, and like I said I use it and absolutely love the service. Even the free one is awesome. But its a pain to convince people to switch over. Especially if they're already running Exchange server.

Anyways, thanks for the help guys. I think I understand enough to know what I'll do.

[Pastiche]

You can always use Outlook over IMAP with google apps. Is that the issue that people want to keep their precious Outlook?

[Azure]

No, they want to keep their precious Exchange + Outlook = headache for small business with 10 users IT guys formula.



They don't want to go away from the calender/contacts/tasks/inbox they have setup now. It took a long time to educate them on simple tasks such as emailing. And attaching files.

I might blow up the system if I make big changes.

[Pastiche]

Well I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure you just use Google's server address instead of the exchange server's in outlook and use their migration tool:

https://tools.google.com/dlpage/exchangemigration

Doesn't sound like it's a very sophisticated or specialized exchange environment that they have so you wouldn't have too many headaches.

Then they go along and keep on doing what they've been doing. They wouldn't actually notice any changes.

[FanIn80]

At the end of the day, Outlook is nothing more than an email client. Nobody is suggesting to anyone that they use Exchange over Google or Google over anything else. Outlook is a very good email client when used and setup properly. Also, I sure hope nobody is equating Outlook Express to Outlook. Completely different products, but it's a comparison I've run into more than a few times when having these discussions.

Edit: Also, to touch on the BES thing... I've also managed a BES server along side an Exchange server. I worked for a pretty crazy office once, where people had to have their office email on their phones, but the company wouldn't buy the phones for anyone. It was ######ed. Anyway, half the people had Motos running Windows Mobile 5, and the other half were running Blackberrys.

Talk about headaches...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Well I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure you just use Google's server address instead of the exchange server's in outlook and use their migration tool:

https://tools.google.com/dlpage/exchangemigration

Doesn't sound like it's a very sophisticated or specialized exchange environment that they have so you wouldn't have too many headaches.

Then they go along and keep on doing what they've been doing. They wouldn't actually notice any changes.

Well except for the fact that if the internet goes down, there is no access to Gmail, or their services.

But, I'll look into it more.

[Pastiche]

What's the use of email if the internet is down anyway? IMAP downloads the messages and calendar events if I'm not mistaken.

[FanIn80]

IMAP is definitely the way to go.

[photon]

Ah yes sorry, OST files for offline. It's been far too long since I've done that stuff.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Pastiche

What's the use of email if the internet is down anyway? IMAP downloads the messages and calendar events if I'm not mistaken.

Again, if the stuff is hosted locally they can still make changes to the calender, contacts, tasks....and it can be accessed by other people who also are connected to the local exchange server. For a business that relies heavily on the calender/contact portion of what Exchange does I can certainly understand why it would be an issue.

I mean sure, if you make the changes and it is pushed out eventually.....for most people that would be fine. But I'm talking about a business that uses the calender function of exchange/outlook about 100x more than they use email.

And even if there is 99% uptime...that 1% of no internet creates a huge problem.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Azure

Again, if the stuff is hosted locally they can still make changes to the calender, contacts, tasks....and it can be accessed by other people who also are connected to the local exchange server. For a business that relies heavily on the calender/contact portion of what Exchange does I can certainly understand why it would be an issue.

I mean sure, if you make the changes and it is pushed out eventually.....for most people that would be fine. But I'm talking about a business that uses the calender function of exchange/outlook about 100x more than they use email.

And even if there is 99% uptime...that 1% of no internet creates a huge problem.

Wouldn't it be 100% identical for the end user if you compared an exchange server to a hosted solution by gmail or whoever, the only difference I can see is you wouldn't have intra-office email if your internet went down.

The only real differences would be setup, maintenance etc, or am I missing something that Exchange provides that Google doesn't?

[FanIn80]

I haven't really looked into Google's newer services lately. How well do they handle resource booking, calendar sharing, mail administration and project collaboration?

Those are just a few things that a lot of offices use Exchange for.

Actually, one other thing just came to mind. Ownership. If I have to choose between hosting my company's emails and various communications on hardware that I own, vs someone else's hardware governed by their policies and procedures... I'm going to choose my hardware every single time.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Wouldn't it be 100% identical for the end user if you compared an exchange server to a hosted solution by gmail or whoever, the only difference I can see is you wouldn't have intra-office email if your internet went down.

The only real differences would be setup, maintenance etc, or am I missing something that Exchange provides that Google doesn't?

Well, with the locally hosted exchange server the only thing they wouldn't have is email. I don't know if inter-office email would still work if the net was down.

The cloud hosted exchange server would create the same problems that Google Apps would if the net was down.

[FanIn80]

Correct. When a company's outside connection to the Internet is not working, they are still able to access their Exchange server (provided their Exchange server isn't housed off-site in a different office).

They would still have access to all their intra-office resources, including their contacts, emails and calendars. They just wouldn't have access to send or receive emails to/from outside addresses.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Correct. When a company's outside connection to the Internet is not working, they are still able to access their Exchange server (provided their Exchange server isn't housed off-site in a different office).

They would still have access to all their intra-office resources, including their contacts, emails and calendars. They just wouldn't have access to send or receive emails to/from outside addresses.

Yeah, and that is more important than the security and reliability, plus the low cost of a cloud hosted exchange service.

But I'm seriously, seriously considering moving to Google Apps for businesses.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I haven't really looked into Google's newer services lately. How well do they handle resource booking, calendar sharing, mail administration and project collaboration?

Those are just a few things that a lot of offices use Exchange for.

Actually, one other thing just came to mind. Ownership. If I have to choose between hosting my company's emails and various communications on hardware that I own, vs someone else's hardware governed by their policies and procedures... I'm going to choose my hardware every single time.

Setting up your own hardware is more expensive in terms of initial outlay (hardware and software) and requires either more in house expertise or the expense associated with contracting it out. It also doesn't scale up as much if the number of users is higher (100 users not much cost difference than 150 users)

A service like either Google or Microsoft requires no initial hardware or software cost which needs to be considered with the number of users in mind.
12 users using a $1000 server with $1000 worth of software is far less cost effective than 100 users using $5000 server with $1000 of software.

Of course my perspective might be skewed, since I do IT for a non-profit organization. We scrape for every piece of hardware, for example our BES Express box is probably going to be a Dell GX280 with 2 GB RAM until I can scrape together funding for a real machine. The only good thing for us is most of our software from MS, Adobe etc comes at non-profit pricing so we get a Windows 7 for about $10 a seat and Windows Server 2008 or CS4 for $160.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Setting up your own hardware is more expensive in terms of initial outlay (hardware and software) and requires either more in house expertise or the expense associated with contracting it out. It also doesn't scale up as much if the number of users is higher (100 users not much cost difference than 150 users)

A service like either Google or Microsoft requires no initial hardware or software cost which needs to be considered with the number of users in mind.
12 users using a $1000 server with $1000 worth of software is far less cost effective than 100 users using $5000 server with $1000 of software.

Of course my perspective might be skewed, since I do IT for a non-profit organization. We scrape for every piece of hardware, for example our BES Express box is probably going to be a Dell GX280 with 2 GB RAM until I can scrape together funding for a real machine. The only good thing for us is most of our software from MS, Adobe etc comes at non-profit pricing so we get a Windows 7 for about $10 a seat and Windows Server 2008 or CS4 for $160.

Right, but have to consider that moving your business' communication channel to a 3rd-party hosted service puts you at the whim of their policies. Who's to say that one of your employees doesn't send out communications (unbeknownst to you) that breaks one of their policies... thereby leaving you with disabled access to not only your company's historical communications, but also current incoming emails while you sort out new hosting.

No thanks. Google might be ok for family or personal services, but I don't think I'd consider moving business services to them.

There's also some privacy and jurisdiction concerns too. Let's say your business is doing something that is legal in Canada, but since your documents are housed in servers outside of Canada, which jurisdiction comes into play? Do you want access to your documents to be at the beck and call of a foreign Government?

I know these are talking points that may or may not be of interest to small businesses, or even larger run-of-the-mill businesses, but they are valid points for consideration.

You're right-on about the cost, though. For most small businesses, the cost of running your own Exchange server is pretty huge and probably outweighs the risks I've just mentioned. Unless, of course, the business is something like an Internet Pharmacy. Then it's either host your own Exchange, or get an off-site host in Malaysia.