Talk:Microsoft Exchange Server

message: Could someone with the right knowledge help expand the article with a critisisms section? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.213.130 (talk • contribs) 16:04, February 25, 2006
Sure
First thing is that Exchange does not only offer clean upgrads from previous versions often. So whenever Microsoft come up with some new brillient idea by looking and copying other applications (Lotus Domino in most casses) we the users have to go through a new migration.
It is only available on the Windows platform.
All the problems with OS are inhereted by the Exchange Server so you need both patched all the time.
Exchange only offers mail but if you need more then that you need SQL server, Sharepoint server, VB or Other .Net development tools and Microsoft Office. Do not forget IIS and ASP environament. So bassically what you can do with 2 people in Lotus Notes you need team of 10 people in Microsoft env. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.190.188 (talk • contribs) 17:38, January 25, 2007
:Please adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view and you need a source for all of that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Critisisms 

message: The opening paragraph implies MS Exchange Server is losing marketshare to Linux alternatives without citing evidence thereof. Was this written by a neutral writer or someone with an agenda to support Linux without proof of its dominance or rising dominance in the field of enterprise messaging and collaboration? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.139.10 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 2 November 2005.
Leading questions are unwanted.
Questions about the validity and neutrality of statements are more important than questions about what kinds of people make them.
We are not in search of neutral writers; There are none. What we want are neutral texts.
LionKimbro
The text of this entry clearly reads as a PR piece from Microsoft. Phrases and words such as "phenomenal success," "better," "overcame," "enhanced" and "improved" are at best subjective and at worst, blantant hucksterism. This entry needs extensive neutralizing.
spambox
:I'd agree that is reads as Microsoft marketing copy.  It seems to lack any technical depth as well (which is typical of marketing copy). --David Woolley 14:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that remarking on how it lacks depth and looks like marketing without being specific, or trying to solve the problems and/or discussing the solutions won't help much. -- Northgrove 11:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: overcame: The "overcame" is saw didn't seem to be used in a biased context. It was used to show which limitations it overcame in some predecessors. That's not really advertisement, now is it? Surely, it did overcame some limitations? The context matter a lot -- "overcame" as in "overcame the feature set of (insert other mail server)" would be more POV. better/enhanced: This should perhaps be changed to other words, but they do explain the reasoning behind them (except in the Exchange 2007 section which needs to be fixed), so the reader is at least able to form own opinions on if it is. But it's possible other words could be used, as it's subjective. phenomenal: Was removed by now. -- Northgrove 11:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro NPOV 

message: Once 2007 is released, this link will probably break, and need to be replaced with a comparable reference. Keramos 02:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's RTM'd now so I'd say the whole Exchange 2007 section needs to get reworked/merged into the history section. 17:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link to Exchange 2007 Preview site 

message: It seems this list is getting longer and longer, many of these competitors don't even have Wikipedia pages.  Perhaps we should have some sort of notability requirement for inclusion on this list. Raitchison 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitors Section Overcrowded 

message: I recall from somewhere that MS used Xenix internally for email, right up until their last Xenix machine was replaced with Exchange Server 5.  
Is this an urban legend?  Or is there something official to back this up?
NevilleDNZ 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "This technical case study examines the evolution of Microsoft's legacy XENIX-based messaging system into to the present Microsoft Exchange environment. [...] The bulk of research and planning for the migration from the legacy XENIX system began in 1993 and was completed just before Microsoft Exchange 4.0 shipped in April 1996." njan 18:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exchange server 5 and Xenix 

message: In my opinion, starting the article off with a technical history section is a poor way to introduce any topic.  This should be moved a lower and more appropriate position in the article - mostly likely toward the end of it.  --Mespinola 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emphatically agree. An introduction should explain what the product's specific purpose is, but it does not. Moreover, any information about the usefulness of Exchange is either completely missing, or shrewdly hidden, or camouflaged anywhere in the article, something that Microsoft does often when describing their products. (Question: was this article written by Microsoft employees?) Also, its inner workings are left to the reader's imagination, based on its "email server software" nature. --AVM (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Is there any reason that it seems like the most perfect thing in the world - why are no disadvantages to this method stated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inanimous (talk • contribs) 05:50, July 23, 2007
the poeple who decide to host rather than fund an exchange server often lack the technical knowledge of the application to make 
required in depth analysis of the options.  hence, so long as theres less money involved its a defacto 'better choice(c)'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.160.39 (talk • contribs) 17:38, August 1, 2007
There are some disadvantage as with any service. To start with, the data resides in the cloud. This has gotten less and less of an issue, with more and more of our information being stored online. Another disadvantaged is the lack of extensive customization of the system. 
I have to disc agree with the notion the people who host lack technical knowledge. Business looks at their bottom line and if keeping a 100K salary Exchange Server administrator in the company is hurts the bottom line, then maybe they will decide to host.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.102.28 (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hosted Exchange 

message: Can anyone say if this server uses open standards, or if it uses Microsoft-specific standards, thereby requiring end-users to have Microsoft client software? I ask because my institution just switched over to Exchange, and the support staff advises us to use Microsoft email clients. The MS software takes advantage of all the Exchange features, but it looks like even basic mail functions are broken when non-MS software (i.e. Thunderbird) is used with the Exchange server. 
I've found some articles suggesting that MS is using closed standards on the server to pressure users into adopting their client software, but I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on them. You may be interested in the following:
*Section: "The Special Lock of Exchange Server"
*Exchange and iPhone
AdamRetchless 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in contact with people using Free Software to read their email on a MS Exchange 2007 server. It appears clearly that the standards are not respected. For instance, return receipts are automatically sent by the server if the IMAP client issues a FETCH command to the server. No matter what is answered on the Return Receipt dialogue. If the user does not want to send a return receipt, it will be sent anyway as the client issues the fetch command. Microsoft is aware of this feature, but correcting it is not among the priority and will be done within the next 2 years, in the next version of Exchange. Moreover, the Exchange Mailbox modifies the headers of the mails that are stored in it, and sometimes the body of the messages -- spaces are sometimes added, which may bother ascii signatures. I do not think this is a standard behaviour. I was assured that the Exchange Server followed the standards described in the RFCs though. Randomredux (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What standards does it use? 

message: Why is there a picture of Microsoft outlook under the exchange 2010 category???
I have a picture of Exchange 2010 but lack the knowledge to set it up. GO GO WIKI PEOPLE!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.117.107 (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlook Picture for exchange 2010??? 

message: is it just me or the intro image ridiculously big?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.255.74.11 (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since removed. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro image 

message: Can we remove the following from the article? diff -
: This article is written like an advertisement. Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view. For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic, use  to mark for speedy deletion. (February 2011)
Reasoning: The Template:Advert tag carries no justification, and was done by an anonymous contributor 59.182.62.111.
The only offence I can see is that the article uses the name "Microsoft".
NevilleDNZ (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: "is written like an advertisement." tag 

message: I feel like there is too much talk about license and there shouldn't be. It feels like we are explaining how to purchase Microsoft Products. If I were to describe printer form HP would I be talking about license. Probably not. Please feel free to discuss this as It think wikipedia is gotten too much into explaining Microsoft licenses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.102.28 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not much else we can discuss. Licensing info is a rather important point in software articles.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't think so - it isn't like that the whole article is about the licensing.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: We don't remove information because it is outdated. Edition comparisons!=licensing.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Or more specifically, outdated info about a current piece of software is changed/removed but current info about an outdated piece of software is kept.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: Scanning the article (I was looking for something else) I noticed inaccuracies and important missing info. I was a Windows support engineer from 95 launch to Server 2003; yes Microsoft has deleted much of the corroborating information from their web servers however I would be delighted to upload (formerly public) Microsoft documentation if one would wish to verify. 
* Xenix was developed by Microsoft however software development from DOS to Win3.x was on PC emulators on PDP-11 machines. Microsoft doesn't admit this but login authentication was to Novell Servers, and Microsoft Mail was running on Lanman Servers. The Win95 registration option connected through MSN and required IPX protocol (usually installed by default in Win95). Xenix (Unix predated IP) often ran on IPX. 
* Missing information about Microsoft Backoffice Server 4.0 and Microsoft Small Business Server which wraps Exchange in a standalone package. More sold than discrete Exchange Server.
* Exchange 2007 did come as a 32-bit beta and later non-expiring trial version ("not for production use"). Download was available through at least beginning of 2012. The copy I have runnong on Server 2008 32-bit (MSDN availability) still recieves Windows Updates.
* Microsoft BPOS in 2010 was still running on Exchange 2007 Server back end. The Migration documents available to BPOS (and Office 365 beta) included support for Exchange 5.5 migration to Microsoft Online but noted that Exchange 5.0 or earlier was not supported. 
* "Exam 70-075: Implementing and Supporting Microsoft Exchange Server 4.0" notes (and on CNET archive) "Microsoft Windows NT Server 3.51 or later" whereas 1993 was NT 3.1 release only. 
* Exchange history seems to be a plagarized copy of http://www.aurelp.com/tag/microsoft-exchange-server-history/
Shjacks45 (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article accuracy is questionable 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Microsoft Exchange Server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/itsolutions/intranet/build/exchgdep.mspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/bb288484.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/storage/storgloss.mspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have created this, as essentially just copy of the "History" section here. The next step is to trim out all but a bare outline from that section - in the interests of cleaning up the article as a whole. Feel free to trim away! If no-one else does so, then I'll do it in the next day or two. Snori (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Snori (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New [[History of Microsoft Exchange Server]] article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Exchange Server. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120530/http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html to http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Have just deleted this long-standing 'branding' - it's not a great article, but I don't see any of the bulleted faults. - Snori (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has multiple issues? 

message: Add my name when it comes out 
Cetc. For high top management
System mircosoft will incorporate next. 
det. 52
 --Kpememory (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  H.T. M. 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Outlook on the web which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 11:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Outlook on the web which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress