02-17-2003, 05:55 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Rich Exchange Server Functionality - A Moot Point?
One of the things we saw and heard a lot about at the MVP Summit was Exchange 2003 server (code-named Titanium). There are some supremely cool features coming, many of them tying into the Pocket PC. The best Pocket PC experience has always been when linked up with an Exchange server. Microsoft's Mobile Information Server has some great technologies built in, allowing server-sync and rich folder functionality. For Microsoft employees, the Pocket PC is a powerful tool for email.
The problem is, not everyone has an Exchange server. Microsoft builds in functionality on the assumption that everyone has access to one! I work with quite a few small businesses and individuals who can't afford the licensing, hardware, and upkeep costs of an Exchange server. There are third-party Exchange hosting services, but many are cost-prohibitive. Email is done through POP3, period. I fall into the same category - I don't have the expertise to manage my own personal Exchange server, so my email experience is nowhere near as powerful as the people at Microsoft. It's a consistant frustration when we hear about new features coming to the Pocket PC and we find out it's an Exchange-only improvement.
So it's survey time! Where do the rest of you stand?
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 06:20 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 57
|
|
I voted in the survey that our company uses Exchange server, however out IT department has not implemented any of the features required to synch e-mail with the server for the PocketPC. I think that may be the case in a lot of companies. Although IT says they will support the PocketPC for deskside synchronization, they have yet to implement Microsoft mobile information server for wide spread support.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 06:25 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 59
|
|
I'd second that. Quite a few of our staff have PocketPC but our IT aren't planning to let us do anything more than synchronise with Outlook locally.
__________________
Mark Anderson
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 06:41 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 651
|
|
I'm using exchange 2000 here and love it. While I love all the new features which are put in the next version of exchange, I don't know if my budget will allow for an upgrade. So while it looks great, it will take a a while for me to justify upgrading.
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 06:50 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
The Pocket PC experience on Exchange is a pain for IT departments for Exchange 2000. It requires Mobile Info Server and a separate box to run on - you can't run E2K and MIS on the same server.  This is why I don't have MIS here - can't afford the hardware.
Exchange 2003 though integrates this and it is supposed to be as simple as enabling a check box in E2K3, much like enabling Outlook Web Access on E2K.
The answer for home users is of course to just set up your own personal Exchange server! :wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 06:53 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,768
|
|
local Exchange Server
While it isn't as easy as using a Word Processor, installing Exchange Server on my home server which is also running IIS was not that hard. I only needed to get a few static IP addresses from my ISP and I was done. If you can afford it, get the Universal MSDN subscription which includes all of this producivity software.
__________________
Jonathan (JonnoB)
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 07:07 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 725
|
|
Re: Rich Exchange Server Functionality - A Moot Point?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
I fall into the same category - I don't have the expertise to manage my own personal Exchange server, so my email experience is nowhere near as powerful as the people at Microsoft.
|
I think you're either underestimating yourself or overestimating Exchange because (like Jonno said above) it really isn't that hard to do. As for the cost, I think it was something like $700 which isn't really THAT bad.
It's not so much that I'm disagreeing(you certainly shouldn't have to run a personal exchange server to get the most out of your PPC), I think what microsoft is going to have to do is push (and maybe to some extent subsidize) those offering exchange clients to individuals to lower their prices while at the same time encourage other ISPs to use Exchange Server and offer straight exchange clients in addition to SMTP/POP3 (sort of embrace and extend for your email).
Bottom line: drop the individual client license charge!
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 07:10 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 118
|
|
Exchange and PPC Inbox
Hi all
Our IT dept (of which I am part) is working toward installing Exchange. However, with regards to supporting PPC I came across this article in PocketPCMag:
http://www.pocketpcmag.com/Nov02/e_directions.asp
This seems to indicate Exchange has a problem working with PPCs... Above it was mentioned PPCs were designed and worked most efficiently with Exchange. Which is it? The article I am quoting says that PI doesn't have a native MAPI client...
Unfortunately, while I am in the group doing the implementing, I will not really know a whole lot about Exchange's configuration until it is working, since it isn't my job-focus.
I would like to influence my teammates to install something that I (and the rest of the PPC-based users in the company) can use without much trouble.
For the record, we have IMAP & POP3 servers serving up our mail now, and since I don't like how ActiveSync syncs the Outlook Inbox, I have configured a link to our IMAP server on my PPC. Based on the link above, I will be pushing toward retaining the IMAP service on the new Exchange server unless someone can help sway my decision.
thoughts?
AXE
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 07:20 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 153
|
|
Re: local Exchange Server
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JonnoB
While it isn't as easy as using a Word Processor, installing Exchange Server on my home server which is also running IIS was not that hard. I only needed to get a few static IP addresses from my ISP and I was done. If you can afford it, get the Universal MSDN subscription which includes all of this producivity software.
|
I don't want to be the license police here, but I think the server licenses included with MSDN are 'for testing only', meaning you shouldn't be using them for 'production'. It's a bit of a gray area, but you know that any gray area would go to the side with the more expensive lawyers. Not that I think MS would come after you as an individual...
A wiser (and actually cheaper) choice is to go with small business server. SBS includes Win2K server, ISA (firewall) server, SQL server and Exchange server for about $1400, including 5 Client Access Licenses (CALs). True, you don't get all the development stuff and updates, but you avoid the gray area in licensing.
I don't want to hijack the thread, just wanted to point out the potential issues...
-Jim
|
| |
|
|
|
02-17-2003, 07:31 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 8,228
|
|
Re: Exchange and PPC Inbox
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by axe
Hi all
Our IT dept (of which I am part) is working toward installing Exchange. However, with regards to supporting PPC I came across this article in PocketPCMag:
http://www.pocketpcmag.com/Nov02/e_directions.asp
This seems to indicate Exchange has a problem working with PPCs... Above it was mentioned PPCs were designed and worked most efficiently with Exchange. Which is it? The article I am quoting says that PI doesn't have a native MAPI client... |
Either the article is wrong or is talking about Exchange 5.5. OWA in 2000 works just fine on a Pocket PC as does native IMAP support. No addins needed at all. To enable the Server Sync, you do need to buy MIS - a component E2003 comes with.
The PPC doesn't have native MAPI, but with IMAP you really don't need it for email, and with the MIS server or MIS component you definitely don't. It is very efficient over low bandwidth connections - something MAPI isn't.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
