Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TouchToneTommy on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Exchange 2000 or 2003?
- Thread starter autowah
- Start date
I personally think Exchange 2003 will give you more benifits than E2K. Heres why;
Longer pay back on implementation, E2K has an end of life of Dec 31 2007. So moving to E2K3 will give you a longer "in use period" therefore lower the operating cost over these years.
Better recoverability at the backend, RSG works well, and with backup vendors calling snapshots now, so easy and fast recoverablility is a real benifit.
SPAM Support at the backend (although not as good as at the client still worth a mention)
OWA for mobile users looks and feels like Outlook 2003 so very little training needed.
OMA for total mobility with WAP etc
My 2c's worth
Longer pay back on implementation, E2K has an end of life of Dec 31 2007. So moving to E2K3 will give you a longer "in use period" therefore lower the operating cost over these years.
Better recoverability at the backend, RSG works well, and with backup vendors calling snapshots now, so easy and fast recoverablility is a real benifit.
SPAM Support at the backend (although not as good as at the client still worth a mention)
OWA for mobile users looks and feels like Outlook 2003 so very little training needed.
OMA for total mobility with WAP etc
My 2c's worth
Which migration is easier and less problematic? Migrating Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 or 2003? What about if you have multiple sites on 5.5? Can you migrate one to 2000 or 2003 and leave the other site on 5.5 temporarily? Does E2K or 2003 make a difference?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Helpful tip
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question