Subscribe to Windows IT Pro
December 17, 2009 12:00 AM

Microsoft's Astrid McClean Discusses Exchange 2010

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #103310
Rating: (5)

Q: With Exchange 2007, there was initially a lot of resistance to Windows PowerShell and the idea of Exchange management through the command-line or scripting. Do you have a sense of what users are saying now? Have they become accustomed to PowerShell in Exchange? How does remote PowerShell in Exchange 2010 affect this picture?

McClean: What we're seeing now is the use of PowerShell both across Exchange and across other products is growing, so people are certainly becoming more comfortable with the concept of managing a server using PowerShell. But we've tried to put as many of the common tasks into the GUI as possible. So whether it's the Exchange Management Console or whether it's the Exchange Control Panel, the majority of the work can be done with some sort of GUI management tool.

But because all of those tools use remote PowerShell on the back end, we've also allowed you to do things in the Exchange Management Console where you can see what command is going to run so that if you do want to use that command later as part of a script, or you want to understand what's happening, you have the power to do that. We've made some enhancements to the Exchange Management Console this time around to make that easier. In fact, there's a PowerShell log that will log everything that happens in Exchange Management Console so you can actually see what's going on. We've tried to make it easier for people to make that link between the two if they need to go to PowerShell to do anything that they've been doing through the GUI tools.

From a remote PowerShell point of view, two things make that very powerful. You're able to manage, for example, additional Exchange forests through the Exchange Management Console now. And that's made possible because the connection is made through remote PowerShell. So you can make this remote connection and manage more than one forest, for example, through the Exchange Management Console. The other thing that it's allowed us to do is it sets the basis for the GUI tools we're using with RBAC and then only showing you the features in the tools that you actually have access to. And because remote PowerShell has this concept of restricted run spaces, it only gives you access to the things you have access to through RBAC.

So it's given the administrators an easier-to-use tool when they delegate things The other thing for remote PowerShell—it also enables customers that don't have a 64-bit OS to install the management tools. They're actually able to run remote PowerShell on a 32-bit OS and still connect to the Exchange server and do scripting through there. So it's given us quite a powerful platform to work from.

Q: The Outlook Web App (OWA) improvements in Exchange 2010 seem to make it a true rival for the Outlook desktop client. Do you anticipate this situation affecting upgrades to Outlook 2010, which isn't available yet?

McClean: I don't think it will stop people upgrading. But it gives organizations more choice. So what we're finding is a number of organizations where they may not have given their users email access at all because they don't all have a PC or they're working on shifts and have to share PCs—it now gives them a far greater option to give their people a browser-based tool to connect to. So it's really about making sure that organizations have a choice about which tool they want to use, and in making that choice they're not losing functionality, which is why you'll see a lot of the functionality in OWA is reflected in Outlook 2010. So it's about making sure that we give as much parity across all of our clients as possible.

Q: What features are available in OWA 2010 and, eventually, in Outlook 2010 that you won't get with Outlook 2007?

McClean: I don't know if I have a complete list, but the major ones would be conversation view, the new conversation view that's actually driven from Exchange. MailTips is something that's only available in those two. The personal archives is only accessible in OWA or Outlook 2010. The calendar sharing options where you can share privacy information with other organizations. They're probably the major ones.

Q: But if you upgrade to Exchange 2010, you can use all of these in OWA, even if you haven't upgraded Outlook?

McClean: Absolutely.

Q: We've covered a lot of ground and I'm sure you've answered some questions our readers still had about Exchange 2010. Do you have anything to add?

McClean: We're really excited about this release. I've just come back from TechEd in Europe, where we did our launch in Berlin, and the buzz from the community and the people that stormed our booth was really quite infectious. We had a lot of excited people. A lot of our sessions, we had to turn people away because there was just so much interest in them. There's a really high level of buzz about this and it's great to see because we've put a lot of work into this release. We know there are a lot of good features in there, and it's really good to see the community reaction to those features by getting this feedback. There are a lot of excited people out there.

Q: One of the things we've encountered in the past when we start writing about the newest releases is that many IT pros in our audience, for whatever reason, simply aren't ready for upgrading yet. Did you encounter any of that sort of sentiment as well?

McClean: One of the things that we have heard is that there's a lot of our Exchange 2003 customers, and they say to us, "Well we were looking at Exchange 2007, but now I've looked at what Exchange 2010 has got and we're going straight there." And that's something that we hear over and over again from 2003 customers. And even some 2007 customers, although there's no in-place upgrade, because we have the online move mailbox feature, which means that they can move mailboxes across to the new infrastructure without impacting their users, that certainly softens the blow in terms of user impact, which in the end is something that's most important to organization. That's a feature that people are particularly excited about in terms of making it a very smooth deployment process.

Related Reading:

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • Brian
    2 years ago
    Jan 11, 2010

    In response to this article and the resulting discussion about in-place upgrades (or the lack thereof), a reader emailed me the following message:

    Actually I would not do an In-place upgrade for anything if it could be avoided. Much safer, easier, and more controlled to build the new environment, then move a small number of “volunteers” to the new environment for testing. Once it all looks good, then move the remaining accounts in an orderly, controlled fashion. But we have a large environment with about 18 mailbox servers on two continents, and we use leased equipment, so adding a few more servers isn’t as big an issue as it would be for a single-server environment.

    These days, if I managed a single-server Exchange environment, I’d seriously consider using cloud-based services instead of upgrading (unless that left me without a job!).

    Greg Riebe
    Senior Systems Engineer

  • Penka
    3 years ago
    Dec 18, 2009

    Unfortunately HW has been so cheap that it less cheaper to do move mailbox instead of the running inplace upgrade. And I believe, just too many of us is using HW as use once and through away.
    But sure, if you though the risks:
    You start inplace upgrade, that fails. What is your status then? You have W2008 where you have had E2007 and E2010 which has been done the rollback. But you have also database... Personally I don't want that.

    More likely I was hoping that B.K.W. has been drilled more about the "archiving" solution. E.g. Why they are calling it as an "archive" because:
    - you are not able to decrease the backup data, still in same storage
    - It is not available for Outlook (OL2010 is not released)
    - you are not able to decrease the primary storage costs
    - what is differences between increasing the quotas in E2003/E2007 and with this?

  • Murat
    3 years ago
    Dec 18, 2009

    Erikssong, if we follow your advice, what will happen is:
    1) We buy a new 64-bit machine to upgrade from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2007.
    2) We buy another 64-bit machine to upgrade from Exchange 2007 to Exchange 2010.
    do you think it is wise?

  • Erikssong
    3 years ago
    Dec 18, 2009

    If I had a number of users depending on a working mailsystem, I'd rather consider the move user approach, moving to a system that I have installed in a controlled and tested way, it is safer, opposed to depend on a oneshot upgrade, where addons AV and a number of items will stall the oneshot upgrade. Better safe than sorry.

  • Murat
    3 years ago
    Dec 17, 2009

    Microsoft didn't allow an in-place upgrade from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2007 because, it said " hey man, can't you see 2003 is a 32-bit product and 2007 is a 64-bit product. how can you expect me to upgrade it?" OK, we accepted this. Now it says it does not allow an in-place upgrade from 2007 to 2010 because it says "hey man, can't you see there are schema differences. how can you expect me to upgrade it?" well, upgrade means to overcome these things like Microsoft did it before when it allowed Windows 3.0, a 16-bit product, to upgrade to Windows 95, a 32-bit product. And it did also when Exchange 2000 in-place upgraded Exchange 5.5 though there were schema differences.
    Hey, Microsoft, we are not kids, so stop kidding us!

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.