Log in

View Full Version : How Is Microsoft Direct Push Better Than The Blackberry?


Ed Hansberry
10-30-2006, 01:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.techatplay.com/direct-push-guide/' target='_blank'>http://www.techatplay.com/direct-push-guide/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"I thought long and hard not about the contents of this article, but about the title. While sure to generate some controversy, this is what I believe to be the case. My personal opinion is that the current implementation of Direct Push overall is better than RIM’s Blackberry device where it comes to push mail access on Microsoft Exchange. In fact, I consider Direct Push to be superior to any of the other offerings on the market when it comes to using Exchange as a backend mail server."</i><br /><br />This article looks at scalability, implementation costs, security, operating costs and a few other issues. If you are considering switching to Windows Mobile devices for your portable email, you should check this article out.

cameron
10-30-2006, 03:47 PM
Is there anything out there that compares the bandwidth requirements of Direct Push vs. Blackberry? I'm sure it's out there but I haven't been able to find anything.

The reason I ask is because, after moving to a Wizard with GoodLink over the summer, my bandwidth usage has skyrocketed (10x more). Now, this isn't a problem when I'm in the US, but it creates hassles when I'm out of the country and being charged an exorbitant 1.95 cents/kilobyte for data usage.

mtmra70
10-30-2006, 05:12 PM
While the article was written pretty poorly, I would have to say this comment is spot on:

On the enterprise level, I would consider both BES and Direct Push to be on equal standing in terms of ease of setup. However, having used Blackberry devices before, it must be commented that they are on the most part, rugged with a rock stable operating system. Perhaps it might have to do with the absence, on the most part, of destabilizing third-party software. But the fact remains that once setup, the Blackberry generally just refuses to stop working.

I have power cycled my blackberry less than 10 times the entire time I have had it (about 1 year in total)....cant same the same for my PPC (without phone features mind you).

ketchup
10-30-2006, 05:12 PM
From what I've seen, "Direct push" is not.
The Exchange server sends and SMS message to the device and then the device uses that as a trigger to retrieve the messages from the server. (if you doubt this, set it up and then check your "text message" usage for your carrier.)

The only real "direct push" is when sending a mail from the device. Then it goes directly to the server with no interim SMS message. There is also no native Global Address Book lookup function. (I get around this by copying the GAL to my Outlook Contacts and letting that sync)

"Direct push" is also slower on the mail delivery than RIM's BES.

I run our network and we have a Blackberry Enterprise Server that has 60 Blackberries on it. Doing a test of sending and receiving messages, the Blackberry devices are always faster, sometimes by several minutes.

Direct push speed is somewhat dictated by the carrier's text message system and how fast it can get the "new mail" notification to the Windows Mobile device.

Here in the US, Verizon Windows Mobile devices come with "Wireless Sync" that does kind of what the BES does and it's free. Of course there are limitations like the lack of Global Address Book lookups.

Philip Colmer
10-30-2006, 05:39 PM
From what I've seen, "Direct push" is not.
The Exchange server sends and SMS message to the device and then the device uses that as a trigger to retrieve the messages from the server. (if you doubt this, set it up and then check your "text message" usage for your carrier.)
No, that is the old way that Exchange did "direct push".

With Service Pack 2 on Exchange and Windows Mobile 2005, you get true direct push of email.

If you haven't got SP2, or you haven't got WM2005, you will be using the older method but that is not direct push in the context of this article.

--Philip

Ed Hansberry
10-30-2006, 06:31 PM
From what I've seen, "Direct push" is not.
The Exchange server sends and SMS message to the device and then the device uses that as a trigger to retrieve the messages from the … Of course there are limitations like the lack of Global Address Book lookups.
neither of these statements are accurate with Exchange 2003 SP2 and an MSFP enabled WM5 device. with an MS power toy, WM2003/WM5 can do the GAL lookup too.

SMS as "push" was not a great way to handle it and MS fixed the issue.

reydiodj
10-30-2006, 06:55 PM
"Direct push" is also slower on the mail delivery than RIM's BES.

- actually at my workplace where we are running Exchange 2003 SP2, my MSFP enabled WM5 device can receive messages anywhere from 3 to 30 seconds before my wired Outlook client.

Ed Hansberry
10-30-2006, 07:07 PM
"Direct push" is also slower on the mail delivery than RIM's BES.
agreed. I think the "slowness" ve BES may be related to ActiveSync doing more than just email when it syncs. doesn't matter to me. 3 seconds from the time the email hits the server until I get thee"ding" on my device. could care less if it was faster than that.

- actually at my workplace where we are running Exchange 2003 SP2, my MSFP enabled WM5 device can receive messages anywhere from 3 to 30 seconds before my wired Outlook client.

Birdman
10-30-2006, 08:15 PM
Until MS is able to (i) get the right info. in front of the IT people and SysAdmin people and (ii) change the mindset of IT departments generally, that there are secure, efficient and cost effective alternatives to the BB / BES platform, the comparison and issus is moot.

I was forced to return my HP 69xx because my IT department would not allow me access to the Exchange server to AS "over the air". They cited their familiarity with the BES and lack of familiarity and concerns with bandwith and security of the MS solution.

It may be as good if not better, than the RIM solution, but in the "real world" MS needs to do a much better job of working with the people on the ground (i.e. IT departments) to get this information across to the people that make the decisions (and not just to gadget people / early adopters like myself)

mpaque
10-30-2006, 08:20 PM
Ketchup, you need to catchup (sorry, couldn't resist). As others have stated, that's the old way of doing "push."

We have both WM5 devices and BB devices where I work. I receive my email on my WM5 device a few seconds before my co-workers with BB devices receive the same email.

that_kid
10-30-2006, 10:13 PM
At my job I got the IT manager to replace the BlackBerries our IT staff use with Treo 700wx's, the manager loves direct push and the ability to do more IT things that he couldn't do on the BlackBerry.

mtmra70
10-31-2006, 02:46 AM
"Direct push" is also slower on the mail delivery than RIM's BES.

- actually at my workplace where we are running Exchange 2003 SP2, my MSFP enabled WM5 device can receive messages anywhere from 3 to 30 seconds before my wired Outlook client.

Im guessing you have Outlook 2003 running in cached exchange mode, right? If so, Outlook in "connect" mode is quicker than that.

At my work, the instant I get something on my 'connected' Outlook, its on my BB.....on my 'cached' laptop Outlook, it takes 3-30sec as you indicated.

Janak Parekh
10-31-2006, 05:17 AM
Im guessing you have Outlook 2003 running in cached exchange mode, right? If so, Outlook in "connect" mode is quicker than that.
No, not necessarily. Direct Push is insanely fast if you've got a good signal. I've used several different clients, including noncached, and the Pocket PC reliably gets the message at the same time if not before the desktop.

Anyway, when we're down to seconds, the point is moot, is it not?

--janak

Ed Hansberry
10-31-2006, 05:48 AM
Anyway, when we're down to seconds, the point is moot, is it not?
No. Everyone knows if device X gets an email in 1.3 seconds, it is WAAAaaAaaaAAAAaaay better than one that takes 2.1 seconds, even though no one her has actually bothered to time it. Anecdotal evidence is much more fun than real evidence or practicality.

ketchup
10-31-2006, 04:10 PM
Ketchup, you need to catchup (sorry, couldn't resist). As others have stated, that's the old way of doing "push."

We have both WM5 devices and BB devices where I work. I receive my email on my WM5 device a few seconds before my co-workers with BB devices receive the same email.

To all: my results were using Exchange 2003 Enterprise SP2 on Windows 2000 Server (no SSL on this server, so the GAL lookup tool would not work), and a WM5 device that did not have the MSFP available for it. (Samsung i730) This was what I had found in this configuration and is acurate for this configuration.

However, I just got a Verizon VX6700 (this morning) and will be testing that out starting today and see how my results differ. I'm hoping the delivery is faster. It is WM5 &amp; has the feature pack.

If this does everything the article is about, I have a viable alternative for my users.

Janak Parekh
10-31-2006, 05:17 PM
To all: my results were using Exchange 2003 Enterprise SP2 on Windows 2000 Server (no SSL on this server, so the GAL lookup tool would not work)
You mean, you're not using SSL for Server ActiveSync? If so, I would suggest you set up SSL for security's sake. You can self-sign certificates for free with the tools included with Windows 2000 Server (the Certificate Authority, in particular). The only "catch" about self-signing is that you need to copy the certificate onto the device and install it, but I do that and it works great.

--janak

moriahcom
10-31-2006, 06:52 PM
Does anyone know of a push email application you can load on your PC that can push any POP3 email to a PocketPC/WinMobile deivce and doesn't need Exchange or RIM? I think this would be cool.

Janak Parekh
11-01-2006, 01:24 AM
Does anyone know of a push email application you can load on your PC that can push any POP3 email to a PocketPC/WinMobile deivce and doesn't need Exchange or RIM? I think this would be cool.
No, although some carriers have rolled their own solutions. Verizon, for instance, has Wireless Sync (http://www.wirelesssync.vzw.com/); I believe it can poll your POP account every 5 minutes. (Note that this uses their servers as a push intermediary.)

--janak

Compulim
11-02-2006, 11:00 AM
If a corp support Outlook Web Access and upgraded to Exchange 2003 SP2, it should support MSFP by default (unless IT guy switched it off by unknown reason). Both OWA and MSFP works on same IIS path secured by HTTPS. If you are an OWA user, you can try MSFP and it usually works!

1.3 or 2.1 seconds, I wonder who care about that 0.7 seconds different? As long as the e-mail is received within 3 seconds, everyone is happy with a simple and cheap solution. If you dial a number on your phone, did you care about that 0.7 seconds? Did you notice it? As long as the call is getting connected within 3 seconds, I see no reason why 1.3 is WAAAAAAY better than 2.1 (it's better, but not that extreme). No one even bother to benchmark which phone can connect to the network faster, right?

I read a blog and it say a month of 24/7 MSFP costs slightly more than 1MB of data, without e-mail content. I think MS is working hard on lowering bandwidth as many ppl at MS should be using MSFP now, it save money in their pocket too.

POP3 do not support push, and there is no way to build it except with an intermediate server. But I guess some clever guys are making server-based solution for POP3 push-mail.

moriahcom
11-02-2006, 08:06 PM
I wasn't sure if it existed. I have a server that pushes Pop3, including gMail. I timed it against my friends RIM device and I beat it almost every time. I wasn't sure if I should finish it and package it for resale if there were a bunch of other applications already on the market. It can handle muitiple devices and email accounts at the same time.

GadgetDave
11-03-2006, 07:23 PM
&lt;sigh>

It's a religious argument on one hand (like PC vs Mac), and it's MS Crack on the other hand.

Let me start by saying I'm a MS Fan, I love my PPC, and it does way more than my BlackBerry (although there are a TON of apps for the blackberry, too).

However, in terms of solid, reliable, "it just works" remote email, You'd have to pry my BB out of my cold, dead hands. I never reset it (can't say that about the PPC), I never worry about the BB battery, and I don't think about it. That's the highest compliment I can give. It just works.

I'd never put a PPC in a senior executive's hand (especially as a phone) because I wouldn't want to explain resetting and freezeups and so on. I wouldn't want to have to remind them to charge it every night. And heaven forbid they want to make it work on 2 wifi networks (home/work) and GPRS/EDGE ...

Just my $ .02 ...

Janak Parekh
11-03-2006, 10:39 PM
I wasn't sure if it existed. I have a server that pushes Pop3, including gMail. I timed it against my friends RIM device and I beat it almost every time. I wasn't sure if I should finish it and package it for resale if there were a bunch of other applications already on the market. It can handle muitiple devices and email accounts at the same time.
There are a few, such as the IntelliSync/Verizon deployment, but I don't think it's commonplace. However, you'll certainly want to do more detailed market research before reaching a decision on this.

--janak

dlinker
11-07-2006, 01:36 AM
&lt;sigh>

It's a religious argument on one hand (like PC vs Mac), and it's MS Crack on the other hand.

Let me start by saying I'm a MS Fan, I love my PPC, and it does way more than my BlackBerry (although there are a TON of apps for the blackberry, too).

However, in terms of solid, reliable, "it just works" remote email, You'd have to pry my BB out of my cold, dead hands. I never reset it (can't say that about the PPC), I never worry about the BB battery, and I don't think about it. That's the highest compliment I can give. It just works.

I'd never put a PPC in a senior executive's hand (especially as a phone) because I wouldn't want to explain resetting and freezeups and so on. I wouldn't want to have to remind them to charge it every night. And heaven forbid they want to make it work on 2 wifi networks (home/work) and GPRS/EDGE ...

Just my $ .02 ...

Couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree.

Also, any corporate who takes security seriously (eg Financial institutions)will insist on all INCOMING connections (ie connections initiated from the Internet) to be strongly authenticated - that means a one time password (SecureID or SafeWord for example) or a smart card. The BES makes an outgoing connection to the "RIM Relay", and the devices connect to the "RIM Relay" thus avoiding this issue.

We ran a project to evaluate Microsft Push to supplement or replace our BES. Every time you lost the network connection (eg getting in a lift/elevator or even sometime switching cell towers), you'd have to enter a new one time password. The trial lasted about a day before all the participants - IT staff who love their Windows Mobile device - gave up.

Also Windows Mobile was unstable - needing a reset at least once a day if not more often. Compared to a BlackBerry, MS still has a long way to go unfortunately - cause I'm sick of waiting for the same Blackberry stability and security on my Windows Mobile Push Email.