Microsoft fights Gmail in the workplace

Dan Warne
21 December 2006, 3:28 AM


Resist the temptation to dump your skimpy work Outlook mailbox for Gmail -- Microsoft is promising multi-gig mailboxes in Exchange 2007.


In an Exchange Server, far, far away: Microsoft Product Marketing Manager Martha DeAmicis demonstrates how Exchange 2007 can cope with 1GB and larger mailboxes at the launch of Vista, Office and Exchange in SingaporeIn an Exchange Server, far, far away: Microsoft Product Marketing Manager Martha DeAmicis demonstrates how Exchange 2007 can cope with 1GB and larger mailboxes at the launch of Vista, Office and Exchange in Singapore

 

Microsoft is fighting the trend for corporate employees to duck IT policies and auto-forward all their work email to Gmail.

The software giant is urging employers to increase mailbox sizes to 2GB or more.

IT departments have traditionally applied such restrictive limits to Exchange Server mailboxes -as low as 25MB per staff member - that users have become frustrated with repeated "your mailbox is full" errors.

Meanwhile, only senior execs have been granted access to work email from home, or via a Blackberry.

As a result, more and more users are auto-forwarding all their email to Gmail, where they have a 2.7GB mailbox capacity and can access it wherever they are - even via a mobile phone.

While the slumbering giant in corporate IT may not yet have woken up to the data security risks associated with this practice, Microsoft presumably realises that if it goes on unchecked, Exchange Server will eventually become expendable.

As a result, Exchange 2007 includes a number of features that Microsoft says makes the 2GB corporate mailbox not only completely viable, but desirable.

Speaking at the launch of Vista, Office and Exchange in Singapore, Exchange Product Marketing Manager Martha DeAmicis said clustered replication capability means one exchange server (not necessarily in the same location) can back up another exchange server automatically.

As a result, companies don't have the burden of backing up to tape every night - a slow and expensive process that means mailbox size has to be kept to a minimum.

Exchange Server 2007 includes a server-equivalent of Windows Desktop Search that pre-indexes all mailboxes 35 times faster than Exchange 2003, so that searches in Outlook are dramatically faster than before.

And the kicker is in the yet-to-be-released Windows Mobile 6.0 - codenamed Crossbow (taking aim at Blackberry perhaps?) - which allows users to search their entire 2GB+ Outlook mailbox via their mobile. They can then draw down any message instantly even if it's not stored on the mobile.

DeAmicis said Microsoft had raised the capacity for each Exchange server from 3,500 to 5,000 users and because it was now 64-bit only, all Exchange servers could access 32GB of RAM, improving caching of very large mailboxes.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Anonymous:

If Microsoft wants to engage me on its fight with GMail, that's fine but they have to show me the money first.

Who is going to pay for the extra diskspace if I follow Microsoft's advice?

...and, do MS expects me to pay for Exchange 2007?

Exchange 2007 may have better backup facilities, but it is still a difficult sell when I can completely outsource the entire backup facilities for free when I choose Gmail as my partner.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

VTBlue:

This article is poorly stated when it says that Microsoft is fighting Gmail with Exchange. Microsoft does not expect any individual end-user to pay for Exchange 2007; rather it is emphasizing employers to move to a modern email system such as Exchange 2007 in order to curb the use of gmail as a respository for corporate emails. The article correctly states that it is not desireable to limit access to email from a work connection. Employees should be empowered to be able to access information anytime anywhere in a secure and safe manor i.e. Outlook Web Access (OWA). Furthermore, mailbox size limits should be a thing of the past especially in the face of the current regulatory and compliance environment. Since the government as well as many industry associations now consider email deletion tantamount to "e-shredding," larger inboxes are absolutely necessary for storage and retention. Hope this clarifies.

-Microsoft Employee

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Larger inboxes are not neccesary in a corporate environment. Companies spend millions of dollars on equipment, backup services, administartors etc to keep the business running. Why do companies need to spend extra money to backup mail files because users want to keep pictures of their kids and dogs in their mail file? Mail quotas ensure that only neccesary items are kept in the mail file. Documents should be kept in document management systems that companies invest in, not single copies in every users' mail file. Pictures, mp3, programs etc that are not work related do not belong in a mail file. A lot of planning goes into systems and without having quotas, people who are actually doing real work when the system goes down because someone has kept 30GB of non work related items, or things that belong on a file server it makes keeping systems impossible.

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Kevin:

I don't know where you work but I can tell you from my daily battle with disk space that larger inboxes are indeed needed in a corporate setting and will actually save the company money. My employer sets limits of 180MB. I have no pictures of my kids... nothing in my in-box is not work related. During the height of our last project I was receiving 200-300 e-mails a day. I was constantly fighting the in-box limit. I'd get messages every two hours that I was over the limit. Everyday had to spend time moving messages to a local post office. Those local post offices are usually stored on the workstation storage which is not being backed up, so one hard drive crash and I lose years of e-mails. So now once a week I have to take the time to back up the PO to a CD... soon a DVD since the archive size is now well over 500MB.

Add up the amount of hours your employees spend cleaning their inbox, backing up their local storage, multiply it times their hourly salaray and I guarantee you would save money giving them 2GB of storage.

If Google can give you 2GB for free I really can't stand listening to corporate America complaining about how much it would cost them to give employees a reasonable amount of storage. You're paying for it one way or the other.

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Bullshit. The first poster had it right. We certainly know that the users don't have to pony up the money, but the companies do. The ones most likely to need 2GB mailboxes are the larger companies, and as another poster with 3000 employees said, it's a colossal amount of disk. I'm sure Seagate and friends would love us to take your advice, but it's just not a sane recommendation. And to then have to pay for the Exchange 2007 and CAL licenses to top that all off...wow, just wow.

It's no wonder people are going to free solutions. Google for Domains is the right direction for small companies. For others there are many open source alternatives that will scale well and work with SSL-IMAP to provide mobile email access.


29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Are they friggen NUTS!?!?!?!?
2GB in an Enterprise Exchange environment?

Please shoot the SAN administrator now. OH and the budget personnel.

Please. I have over 30000 users and their mailboxes range from 30mb to 1gb in limits (1gb reserved for a select few - less than 10 people)

I'm already using almost a Terabyte of space on the SAN. Going to 2GB per person would bring me over 60TB because you KNOW "If it's there, they'll use it"

I guess I'll start having bake sales daily to see if we can generate enough dough to get a 60TB SAN for this.

OH well, have a wonderful day.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Yeah, you might need a whole $60k for that much disk space. Double if you want a redundant set of arrays. That's $120k or a whole $4 per user! What will you do???


29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

$60K for 60TB? What color is the sky in your world? My iSCSI SAN vendor - which is less than FC I might add - gets about $40K per 3TB array. With my math, that's 20x$40K, or $800K for 60TB. Or did you confuse SAN and DAS.....

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Steve Goldsby:


No one seems to be addressing the cost of hardware (Storage) versus the value returned by instant access to information. Email is a primary knowledge tool for me and my employees. I personally use PST archives and X1 search to keep 24 months of email within reach (about 6GB). As a result, I can find messages I sent a year ago in just a couple of seconds, which drives my productivity through the roof. It has been especially useful when dealing with business transactions, conference calls, and so on. I no longer need to "get back with" parties -- I can instantly find everything I need.

My point is this: considering my effective bill rate and the value of my time (and that of my employees) versus the cost of 60TB of storage -- well, it's a no brainer. If I can increase productivity 20%-40% (my estimate), then I can pay for the cost of that storage many times over.


Steve

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

topgun:

Microsoft will need to make this space avialable to it user no mater what. Administrators will need to look to the future here. Exchange it not just a messaging platform but part of a colaboration enviorment. Users will start to see voice message among the items that will be stored in the mailbox. Will google be able to keep up? Maybe. Questions is how can bussinesses rely on Google to provide archiving for things such as SOB/OX and other leagal requirements. I would think that most businesses already restrick where thier data is. Comnpany data offsite and in the hands of a third party? That just spells trouble. Googe Email is for the home and very small busisness user.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Good luck backing up that size database overnight. Perhaps we can convince our small-medium clients to take every alternate week off so we can backup their data?

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Spoonman:

Who the hell has 50M limits on their mailboxes anymore? Is this article from 1997? We have 13,000 employees who each get a gig, and can have it increased at any time by just submitting a web form. VPs and higher get unlimited storage. Forwarding mail like is suggested in the article is a terminable offense. We have very strict policies on that and walked one Senior VP of Sales out the door for violating it earlier this year. NO ONE is exempt. Get with the times, folks.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

ronch:

@spoonman: are you using exchange?

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

I don't know the GP but we give users inbox space anywhere from 100MB-unlimited. Most users have 300-500MB space allocated to them.
Yes we use exchange and it is working ok. We actually block access to gmail in to office so if you tried to use, you are out of luck anyway.

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

raindog:

It wouldn't matter if you were able to give all your users a terrabyte each of mailbox space they'd soon fill it.
Mailbox Quotas may not be popular with all your office droids, but imposing reasonable restictions on mailbox size encourages individual to learn a few organisational and indexing skills.
As their mailboxes fill near quota all those megabytes of "Jackass MPG clips" clogging the mail servers are culled (maybe reluctantly) by users in favor of work related email.
Mail server Backups take less time, searches become more efficient and users reluctantly or not learn that oft neglected skill of culling the crap. Endless storage will do nothing for business efficiency. Storing without the cull is just another menace and storage within mailbox archives of any type is not the best way to hold valuable documents.
A user base that keeps all their critical sensitive and valuable mail on the corporate server and rountinely culls all their MPGs and other fluff off to a Gmail account whilst they are tranferring valued data to the appropriate server, all without complaint, that'd be almost IT nirvarna.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

APC administrator:

I agree that everyone will fill 2GB eventually, but the point is that it stores a longer period of email than the typical 50MB corporate mailbox.

Personally, I -don't- use my corporate email for anything but corporate email, but even work related stuff necessitates sending around 5MB JPEG files and so on these days, so I can easily fill 50MB within a day.

Yeah, yeah, you should use FTP or some other protocol for that, but the fact remains that email is simply the easiest way to get stuff from A to B in most cases.

Strict mail quotas aren't necessarily a good idea -- it means that the 'office droid' has to either delete email that may possibly be useful later (undermining the value of desktop search systems), or use Autoarchive rules to copy it to his/her local hard drive. Local hard drives fail and generally aren't backed up.

Endless storage, coupled with a fast indexing system, is actually incredibly useful for keyword search -- as the popularity of GMail has shown.



29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

raindog:

I'm not proposing a 50Mb limit be set in concrete, requirments vary by user and and there will always be a trade off between user need and harware cost with the sweet spot continually moving over time.
My concern is everything new from Microsoft involves the purchase of bigger and faster hardware. It's not all bad but it certainly lacks innovation and when the costs are exponential bigger mailboxes equals larger backups taking more time, faster platforms to seach more data it becomes hard to justify to achieve the same tasks we did with less resourses in 06. Micrtosoft seems to be only listening to the privileged top end of their market and are pretty much ignorant of the rest of the corporate world. Sure as hardware costs come down we can push the envelope but where is the inovative code. Just for once I'd like to see a file format change or version upgrade in the interests of efficiency and not as a means of stifling the oposition, and one that didn't have me testing every available budget constraint.




29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

You stated that:
"Endless storage, coupled with a fast indexing system, is actually incredibly useful for keyword search -- as the popularity of GMail has shown."

Surprise !! Gmail uses an archiving schemen on the back-end. You don't have a 2GB gmail mailfile as this article FALSELY states. You have a small mailfile with an ARCHIVE of up to 2GB of STORAGE (not file size).

You diss the idea of archiving and then praise gmail, when all they are doing is archiving so you can't see it. No corporate system can efficiently manage mail files of that size. The solution is to archive things seamlessly, which as you said, is actually what the popularity of gmail has shown.


29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

While I agree with the comment that if you give them more space, they will use it -- a principle also true of roads and traffic, which is why widening roads isn't usually the answer to clogged transportation systems -- Exchange 2007 is removing the burden of using extra disks/spindles to spread out Exchange data. You no longer have to have racks and racks of 36gb or 73gb drives to house mailboxes, because the memory allocation and caching engine are *supposed to be* much more efficient. You can get your gigs of SAN storage by moving to 300gb/10kRPM drives and, supposedly, get better performance than Exchange 2003 running on 73gb/15kRPM drives. Tape backups will NEVER go away, though. Continuous Cluster Replication is a great idea, but it won't help me if the CEO deletes all his 2005 calendar items and wants them back!



29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tibi :

You can always use a solution like Mimosa Systems' NearPoint. It can restore the mail from its own nearline archive. No incrementals or brick level required.

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

hammer:

What's the big deal? Large corporations are already dealing with PST files all over the place. Simply making the mailboxes bigger won't stop that. If there 30,000 users in one Exchange system then there is enough money for a fast DR system. You may already be backing up to tape from a snapshot. If the company is that large they are also probably subject in one form or another to the SOX legal requirements. That means an archiving system like Enterprise Vault (KVS bought by Veritas bought by Symantec) is already in place or will be soon. If you are archiving then the storage load is not impacting Exchange storage and those information store sizes remain constant.

My only concern with this as an Exchange admin is system performance and the sheer # of disks required to keep the system responding fast enough.

It is only a matter of time before most companies block external web based email systems.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

No need to worry about disk space either if you are going to implement KVS EV or any of the other email archiving solutions out there. Just make sure you put a complete archiving solution in that doesn't force you to manage the filesystems, like KVS paired with Archivas or even Centera (if you don't mind losing data occasionally).

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

From the recent Iowa Microsoft court case:


>>This directive is issued weeks after the finding of fact in the government case which refer to so many E-mails in support of anticompetitive acts by Microsoft,' Conlin said. 'Valentine's order requires employees to get rid of all email after 30 days no matter where it is. And it is unequivocal.'<<





I guess Microsoft itself is not among those they are recommending these 2GB mailboxes for...



29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Kind of funny considering Microsoft employees are stuck with 150 MB (though I think that's gone up to 250 since they started dogfooding 2007)...

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Actually, mine was increased 450MB with the upgrade... but yeah, still not 2 GB. :-)

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

Who the hell uses their work email for personal things anyway...

oh thats right, the lazy, stupid IT illiterate people who dont realise that as soon as they move job there goes their email history for that period. Use gmail for personal, its the best...

And as for exchange becoming expendable... dont worry it is already getting there...

Where do you think google is going with its apps for domain, standalone gmail client (which by the way is an easy thing to do, lookup python exes) and the google mini server which could house an internal mail server that would allay all privacy concerns of a business...

Free software will not dent MS profits and neither should it. its about product quality... everytime i use outlook at work its like playing with a dinosaur. Gmail and other online email clients are not just developed for the benefit of home users...

Gmail at work will soon become a viable option. Just think if they released a client for free, with an option to pay for a maintence contract you could replae all outlook clients... and still keep exchange. Now thats a money saver...

i know your thinking but what about the retraining cost, it would be a damn sigh lower than paying for outlook seats and access licenses...!

Go Gmail and Calendar too... Only good thing to come out of MS in the last 2 years in xbox 360!

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Paul:

postfix + dovecot & imap Maildirs on a netapp = Mail admin nirvana.

Oh and you can cluster your front end servers very easily.

Get with the times and drop exchange.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Benny Dee:

Another good solution for Linux, which is a real viable alternative to Exchange is @Mail

http://atmail.com/ for details.

Aussie made software too

29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

"Gmail, where they have a 2.7GB mailbox capacity" This statement is flawed. gmail does not support 2GB mailFILES, they support 2GB worth of mail STORAGE. There is a big difference. They are nt running servers with thousands of 2GB mail files, they are running servers with very small mail files with a transparent archiving system allowing end users up to 2GB of SPACE. Anyone can do this with Exchange or Domino if they are willing to invest in the correct hardware and archiving software, as gmail has done. The claim that gmail is offering 2GB mail files and therefore corporate software should support the same is wrong and misleading. They are not supporting 2GB mail files. They are supporting minimal mail files with a large range of space used for archiving.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Thomasson:

I cringe when I think of all the company documents containing operational information including staff details and strategic planning which actually reside on my Gmail account. The inside story of this nation is building up slowly in the Gmail vaults. I know I should not be forwarding my email there, but I'm amazed my company's IT administrators are so f@^#%!! dumb that they in this day and age they still think I can operate with a 20MB Exchange mailbox. I have asked several times for it to be increased and I get the "Corporate Rules" drill. Also, I needed to access the mail from home, and was asked to use Citrix, which does not fix the storage problem. I now use Gmail (account1, account2, account3) and I have more than 7GB of online email storage accessible anywhere. Suck on that, CIO. Despite all your grandstanding about how secure our workplace is, your company's innermost information sits on Google's servers (actually, I trust their security more than yours anyway).

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Stevo:

I use for gmail for roaming, but have an 8GB unix store with email since 1990 and a 150GB exchange account at work. The exchange capacity sucks but I understand why the admins need to limit it. Too bad I have to deal with people that send 30MB PPT slide sets round; I could be over quota in a week if I didnt delete such junk.

If you use gmail for mail, remember that SMTP email to the server is not encrypted. Anyone can listen to those mails you forward. What is worse, your session with the server is over HTTP, not HTTPS. Edit the bookmark to the site to redirect to the https: URL of gmail to stop anyone in a cafe or meeting room being able to read your mail:


https://gmail.google.com/?dest=https%3A%2F%2Fgmail.google.com%2Fgmail


29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Louis:

We have about 500 users worldwide. The average Notes mailbox is about 1GB. Total store is 1TB. Some users have 10GB+ mailboxes. Searches are instantaneous. We have multiple active servers (each with live copy of mail) - mail is always available. Now we are considering exchange. Is this positive? Backups are complete in 6 hours and we have never had a major failure (in about 10 years).

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymous:

We are a 400-500 employee company with no limits on mailbox size. Not my idea. We use Quest archive manager to archive mail but it does not do calendar appointments. I want mailbox limits because our staff have lots of rubbish personal stuff i.e. photos of family, jokes etc. We just recently blocked movie files as we are a govt body and do not get any valid ones. This has helped a bit with storage size. We have limited budget for our SAN so we cannot purchase endless disk space. And what if Exchange dies or you need to transfer to a new server it will be a slow job if the store is large. I want quotas soon

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tom Copeland:

...for moving around huge files. For that you need something other than SMTP - like indi.

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tjeerd:

Does anybody uses tools like:
http://www.mapilab.com/outlook/attachments_processor/
in a coporate environment? To get all the big attachments out of Exchange (and no they are not pictures of my kids ;-)?
Or does anybody uses other tools for this?

29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

AndyAndy:

The only reason why companies’ profit makers are willing to risk their IP/NPI-laden emails on Google’s hard drives is because corporate email groups fail to meet reasonable expectations. I can imagine my corporation’s Exchange group’s staff meetings – a cacophony of -whining- about how -customers- are creating -demand- for services that require -hard work- to address. If Exchange isn’t meeting your -users’- expectations and you’re not actively trying to find solutions to make these customers more productive, then you have failed.

Hint: if you are worried about storage consumed, the simple answer is to price your team’s services and charge back your users … sure, you’ll have to be accountable to your and your vendors’ value, but then they have incentive not to abuse the system.


29 February 2008, 8:29 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

EXadmin:

I am a firm believer that Users should have no Quotas. As an Exchange admin the first step is Spam protection and file screening. MP3's movies etc all these are dropped as SPAM. Secondly Storage is Cheap I estimate for every Terabyte in Exchange you need about $40 grand in hardware. This is peanuts in the big picture. If your sales department can not have emails that are from 4 years ago searchable and accessible then their productivity drops and one E-mail can easily be worth your salary and your exchange server costs in a contract dispute. Trust me I have seen it. Secondly so it costs half a million to support 2000 Users with 2 GB Mailboxes. That’s fine and any business owner will pay for it as long as the reasons WHY are elegantly explained and a strong business case is laied out. When Its time to Upgrade take the time to do some digging and look at wasted time average user salary and lost productivity. Compare that with the cost.

Cheers,



29 February 2008, 8:35 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

dv5678:

    For small businesses, Fortune 500s, groups, and schools, Google wants to be YOUR CORPORATE MAILSERVER! Use YOUR domain name (jsmith@your-company.com), have "administrative control panel", get 2GB per account like regular Gmail, with no preset account limits, all for FREE! like regular Gmail. and they thrown in their online applications.

    Gmail is the ONLY e-mail i know that offers secure POP, secure SMTP, and secure webmail -- so your access password NEVER travels as plaintext. (Sadly, they thoughtlessly default to non-secure HTTP for web-mail after you log on -- you have to figure out to start from https://mail.google.com/mail to ensure that the whole session goes SSL.) Gmail also has pretty good spam filtering. (Very effective, but noticeably lacks some common-sense updating.)

    So how much does "all that drive space" and "all those backups" cost? Just your trust that Google won't use or divulge your data (note, they are carrying it anyway), that Google won't lose the data, and that Google won't shut down Gmail or go out of business. They could lower the quota, (note, they continually raise it). Remaining fears: They could raise the price. They could SELL OUT to someone you don't want to trust.

    Naturally there's a premium service, for $50 per user per year, to get 10GB per user, plus some added features, and SUPPORT.

    Both the free and paid plans are way cheaper than your Exchange server, and way cheaper than your IT dodo. Dare to try it?

    they call it Google Apps. www.google.com/a

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user