Print - An Exchange User's Lament

I was interested to receive the following letter from a long-time Windows IT Pro reader the other day because I haven't heard much negative feedback about Exchange 2007 at all. In fact, most feedback I've heard has been positive. So I thought I'd pass along this message from Murat Yildirimoglu and see what other readers think of his proposal to boycott Exchange 2007.
Murat says:
I wrote two books on Exchange Server in Turkish. To get my MCSE certificate, my last exam was on Exchange Server 5.5 in 1997. From the first time I saw it, I loved that product. Up until now. Up until Exchange 2007. Now I boycott Exchange 2007 and invite all the people to do the same. Here's why:

1.       The setup is ridiculously complex. During the setup, we have to download numerous files. Why do we have to download new components to install a new product? Can’t these components be included in the setup media? There is an example for how to that: Visual Studio 2005 DVD has all the new components it needs to have before the installation. So the installation runs without a glitch. I want the same for the Exchange Server.

2.       Management is complex, cumbersome and command-prompt based. GUI console is trivial: You have to switch to command prompt (Exchange PowerShell) whenever you need to do nontrivial tasks. GUI interface is nonsense: We are accustomed to logically designed, container based management before Exchange 2007. For example, there were administrative groups. Under the administrative groups was the servers container that includes all the Exchange Servers in the administrative group. Under the server, you would see the storage groups. Under a storage group there were stores. Under a store, you would see the mailboxes container. Under the mailboxes, we could see the mailboxes with full details: number of items, size, last logon information, etc. Now, the "Mailbox" names are under three different places with different meanings. And none of them gives us detailed information about the mailboxes. If you want detailed information, you must fire a command from the Exchange PowerShell. Complete nonsense.

3.       For the first time in the history of the Exchange Server, you cannot do the ordinary tasks like creating mailboxes, deleting mailboxes or establishing mail addresses through the User Management console. (In NT times, we used User Manager for Domains; in Windows 2000-2003 we used Active Directory Users and Computers console.) Exchange 2007 does not have the necessary extension. You must do all these tasks from the insufficient GUI console and Exchange Power Shell. Complete nonsense.

4.       When you installed Exchange 2000 and 2003, you could immediately send email to the Internet. And SMTP server was not open to relay; that is, you were safe. In Exchange 2007 you must create a Send Connector to do that. Why? It is complete nonsense.

5.       You cannot easily configure POP3 and IMAP4 protocols. All the configuration must be done through the Power shell. Again, complete nonsense.

6.       Bill Gates always preaches unified communications. Unification and consolidation are two buzzwords now, but Exchange 2007 plays another tune: Diversification. It says that we have to install Edge Transport role to a different machine. It is not optional; it is mandatory. Why? Why do we have to use another machine? It is complete nonsense.

7.       In general, I see a biased attitude in favor of the command prompt. Men, the name of the game is GUI. Do you still remember the name of the operating system? It is Windows, not Command Prompt. In earlier versions I used command prompt only to defrag and repair the stores offline, nothing more. Now, you force me to leave the GUI and migrate to command prompt. Microsoft betrays its roots, its philosophy.

So, I will not teach Exchange 2007. I will not support Exchange 2007. It is called a boycott, yes. And I believe that if we boycott this nonsense product, Microsoft will return to its roots. Just like the fans of the Cola boycotted the Coca Cola Company when it changed its taste in 1985. The fans of the classical taste won then. Maybe we will also.

I have not looked at Exchange 2007 yet. If these comments are correct then Microsoft should not expect many migrations to Exchange 2007 from the SMB markets. I am a fan of scripting and powershell but it should be a choice not a requirement to manage a Windows product. I will not upgrade any time soon because Exchange only supports 64bit processors. I just upgraded our servers two years ago to dual Xeons and the servers never spike above 50%. This is another reason why migrations to Exchange 2007 in the SMB markets will be slow.

If these points are correct then they would affect my migration decision. I could live with the forced 64-bit migration but not the loss of GUI administration. If the GUI is gone so am I.

I have installed Exchange 2007 and I found the installation was good in spite of some prerequired downloads. And yes I was disappointed with the new gui. But it seems that Exchange 2007 SP1 (beta in this april) will have more gui work & usability.

I guess you can sum it up with two bullets: 1: I don't like a command line, even though it is more powerful. 2: I am willing to sacrifice security for an easier installation.

I totally agree. I also think Microsoft betrays its roots. Better command-line control is very important. But to drop a lot of functionallity from GUI is bad. We have a lot of smaller customers that I expect would have a lot of problems with this.

Good food for thought here, Karen. I work with 123Together.com, an Exchange hosting company, and have seen several stories lately about the challenges many companies are facing with Exchange 07. I’m surprised that more people aren’t talking about outsourcing Exchange as an alternative.

I am a veteran of Linux, and have been using it since 1998. I am no stranger to the command line, and I find it extremely useful when implemented well. However, Exchange 2007 has all the disadvantages of a poor GUI and a poor command shell. Sure, the command line is useful for large enterprises who have 18 Exchange admins, like Bank of America where I used to work (luckily when still using Exchange 2003), but not having the ability to change user mailbox permissions in the GUI? That's just asinine, and unconscionable. This alienates many administrators, and makes my life harder, and increases the time it takes me to do simple Exchange tasks from a few seconds to, in some cases, several days. This is insane. I've noticed that anyone who disagrees with the Microsofties here is accused of being a troll and spreading FUD, and all that. Whatever. I've been in IT since the 1990s. I now control a lot of money and make a lot of decisions as to what companies should use for their IT infrastructure. If there is any possible way that I can convince the small- to medium-sized companies that I consult for to explore other email solutions, I will do so -- even if it's Linux-based, as at least the command line there makes some sense. It's not that I am not comfortable with Powershell/EMS. I am. It's just that I hate it and think it mars the good name of Exchange, and also makes day-to-day administration of most tasks much, much harder. Old days: User calls up and wants me to add some permissions to a mailbox: Click! Click! Click! Done. 8 seconds. Today: User calls up and wants me to add some permissions to a mailbox: Oh, what's that command? (Looks it up.) Oh yeah. Ok, hmm, wrong syntax. Let me try that again. Oops, wrong syntax again. To user: Can I call you back in an hour? I have to wade through 20 pages of tech docs to figure this out. User: Confused because it used to take 8 seconds. Just a terrible product.