Jeremy Buch
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:50 am Post subject:
Re: Communicator - LESS FEATURES??? |
|
|
We're working hard to address these exact issues - we didn't have the
bandwidth to do them completely in the past, so we spun-up work (in parallel
with the SP1 effort) to make sure we do better in this area in the
short-term future.
--
Jeremy Buch (Microsoft)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Please do not send email to this address, post a reply to this newsgroup.
"Trevor Miller" <tmiller@iqep.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:emgC3kx2FHA.1188@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Good info all around Jeremy, the only criticism is speed of development.
While I know one just can't through resources at development effort for
speed, the mainstream functionality from the end-user perspective hasn't
progressed all that much. The two things I hear from my users are:
-Multi-end point video and
-Application sharing with multi-monitor
From a mgmt perspective I'd like to see better VoIP support for SMB's but
I think primarily this lies with 3rd party service providers doing SIP
based PBX in the SMB market.
-trevor
"Jeremy Buch" <jbuch@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OLci1Nm2FHA.744@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
The reason is that the cost for me to continue to support Exchange IM as
Exchange continues to change (setup, AD settings, etc) was too painful,
so we took the lump for having ever introduced it and just offered people
free transition to LCS 2003. The number of customers (and end-users) who
needed Exchange IM for their business were focused on reliability, scale,
security, supportability and functionality - all of them were happy to
see LCS come around and offer these features in a more robust way. The
only customers who were sticking with Exchange IM were customers (in
general) who were delaying their updates to LCS due to timing, or
customers who didn't really want a robust system and were leveraging
ExchIM as a simple tool they could use on a reasonably secure network for
some simple functionality. I understand that these customers (as you
mention) are interrupted in their ability to keep using a simple tool.
However, this wasn't the mainline case for our customers and the cost for
me to continue to support Exchange IM when most customers wanted LCS
anyway wasn't reasonable - especially because having the two products
confused people because they did the same thing. This isn't a question of
greed, it was mostly a question of making things clear, doing what our
customers wanted and not continuing to support deprecated functionality
in light of LCS. We focused on giving Exchange customers access to LCS
2003 for free when we started this process to ensure that they had a
roadmap they could work with.
Hopefully this helps explain why we are where we are today - this was a
tough decision for the reasons you mentioned, but I believe we made the
right choice in offering the best support for our customers and keeping
our costs lower while giving them what they wanted.
--
Jeremy Buch (Microsoft)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Please do not send email to this address, post a reply to this newsgroup.
"Scott" <sdgmcdon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:exOAV7b1FHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
sure, they can stick with exchange 2000 if they wanted to, or keep a
license for both which would be about the same cost roughly as exchange
and LCS - point was, they removed a feature of the server and now charge
for it. I get the whole "it's better" deal..but for those of us that
didn't give a rats butt about federation etc it costs us more for zero
added benefit for our use. Why not just leave the implementation the 4
man dev team did with messenger in exchange 2000 in exchange 2003? Why'd
they have to ditch it completely, just because of LCS? Nope, that's not
the reason, it's because they could make more money this way pure and
simple.
"Jeremy Buch" <jbuch@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23jGwxCR1FHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Exchange IM was a four-man dev team that was basically a purchased
academic product. LCS 2003 was a die-hard enterprise product that had
a team of tens of devs, provided security and encryption and levels of
scale and reliability that Exchange IM could only dream of. ...and the
story just got tremendously better with LCS 2005 SP1 which added
federation across the Internet, outside users and connectivity across
all public clouds.
I'm just saying that Exchange IM and LCS 2005 are only as comparable as
win-pop-up/net send was to Exchange IM before it. Sure, both Exchange
IM and LCS 2003 got IM messages from one machine to the other, but the
way they did it and the functionality and robustness behind it were
entirely different things. Hotmail is free, but customers pay for
Exchange and Outlook because they are highly engineered tools and they
are worth the money - the same is true now with LCS. If Exchange IM
was good enough for customers' purposes, it can still be used today -
but I haven't seen any customers want to stick with it even in light of
the costs to purchase LCS 2005.
--
Jeremy Buch (Microsoft)
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
Please do not send email to this address, post a reply to this
newsgroup.
"Scott" <sdgmcdon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eDP760A1FHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
of course it's their perogative to do...like when they pulled
messenger from Exchange from 2000 to 2003 and came out with LCS...It
just seems as though they are heading towards licensing every
component of the server platform rather than the whole package. I
expect the next version of exchange will likely have a license for the
email portion, then a license for calendar sharing then a license for
global address lists etc...It just seems to be getting stupid. When
you buy a server touting it's ability to do x, y or z it should do x,
y or z natively without additional licensing cost above and beyond the
purchase of the package itself.
I mean really, whats next? CAL's for IIS?
"Will D. Robinson" <WillDRobinson@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:AA56EEFC-CB3D-40FC-A53A-A20B20A3C2E9@microsoft.com...
You can still use windows messenger 5.1 with LCS. You will still be
able to
take advantage of presence functionality. This is free.
Your perspective is somewhat common and I empathize. PIC is licensed
so
that you have to pay for all 3 (AOL, Yahoo, MSN) and some of that
cost is
royalties to the other 2 companies. I obviously do not know what
percentage
that is.
In my humble opinion, if a company provides a richer feature set
through an
alternative tool, they should be able to receive revenue for creating
value
and recovering cost. I am digressing from purpose of this newsgroup
so I
will stop.
--
Will R
PointBridge Solutions
www.pointbridge.com
"Scott" wrote:
the "licensed" part is what I have a problem with...Using MSN
messenger is
free and use to be free when using LCS, now if you want the nicer
client for
LCS you have to pay to connect to MSN from within it - unbeleivable.
Microsoft is going to license their butts right out of business if
they keep
this crap up.
"Will D. Robinson" <WillDRobinson@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in
message news:D46C8769-6820-4DD9-994C-04DC0BFF2FC9@microsoft.com...
There is a tool in LCS resource kit that may work. I'm not sure
how EASI
accounts will import into MOC since they are not supported at this
time.
The
tool is MOCImp and can be found in the resource kit:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=D21C38E5-5D8F-44C7-BA17-2CC4F85D8B51&displaylang=en
Communicator must be run with LCS implementation. You must have
Public IM
connectivity licensed and configured for your LCS implementation
to add
MSN
accounts.
--
Will R
PointBridge Solutions
www.pointbridge.com
"Scott" wrote:
K, just checking out communicator now that I finally got the
non-msdn SP1
version of LCS 2005 working and I find that you cannot import
contacts
from
a saved file in communicator? So, if you have 150 people in your
company
the
user is suppose to load them all manually? WTF?
Next, Windows Messenger supports using an MSN account - why
doesn't
Communicator? Or does it and I can't find it?
Thanks!
Scott
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in