Exchange 2007/Outlook 2007 vs. Outlook 2007/ISP POP3

Exchange 2007/Outlook 2007 vs. Outlook 2007/ISP POP3

Post by cGh5YmVycG » Sat, 17 May 2008 04:53:00

Can anyone give me a list of reasons to move from an Outlook 2007 ISP POP3
setup over an in house Exchange server? Are the only real benifits I can see
are a central address list, and shared contacts, calendars, not a real
feature for some small businesses? Windows sharepoint, can do those things
for free.

Exchange 2007/Outlook 2007 vs. Outlook 2007/ISP POP3

Post by Mark Arnol » Sat, 17 May 2008 06:03:44

On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:53:00 -0700, phyberport

I'm not going to offer you a comparison between Exchange 2007 and a
POP3 provider (the client side is not relevant to you right now). See:
the feature-set.

It all boils down to what you want to have. If you tick all those
boxes in the link then you should go for the Exchange but if you don't
share contacts or calendaring information and only have basic to/fro
email needs then Exchange probably isn't for you.


Exchange 2007/Outlook 2007 vs. Outlook 2007/ISP POP3

Post by Jarry » Fri, 30 May 2008 17:44:03

here is also the issue of control over the mail service that your company
uses. If you wanted to add an email address RIGHT NOW you could do so
without the possibility of waiting for the ISP to sort it out, and you can
make sure it gets done properly, i.e. no typo's. OK nowadays ISPs offer an
Admin website or something where you can do that and more, so maybe that
isn't an issue - I was merely trying to give a simple example. But
furthermore if you are any good at Exchange, or become good at it, you can
troubleshoot issues in your own time assigning priority based on your own
needs, not that of the ISP's and its many other customers.

What you gain from having an Exchange server (other than the sharing
functionality) is control. What you shed is a whole lot of responsibility -
you pick up the phone and after that it is someone else's job. You have to
consider if that is what you want. I was subjected to a number of blunders
of service requests made by ISP's engineers and had to wait on them to
remedy the situation. SLAs hardly ever cover fully the cost of downtime.
Then again if you aren't interested in getting hot on managing your
company's email solution, which is fair enough as the IT services required
by a business are vast and no one person is going to know EVERYTHING about
everything, then perhaps it is better to rely on someone who has half a
chance of getting it right most of the time.

As I said, I have had a number of bad, infuriating experiences, so my view
on ISPs is tainted I guess. We moved to our own Exchange server a few years
back and by keeping a concientious watch on it it hasn't failed me yet. And
making changes and resolving issues HAS been quicker than when we relied on
an ISP.

You may well think I am being unfair and perhaps you have been very happy
with your ISPs email service, but I for one like to be able to take hold of
the tiller from time to time (when you want something done properly, do it

You should also think about things like OWA, centralised mailbox repository
that helps simplify backups, offline / cached storage, RPC over HTTP for
remote working (as in when a user has a home PC AND a work PC), et al. In
my view, the central DB and all the services that drive the various
components of Exchange make it better, even if you only use it purely for

You can even get hosted Exchange services now which might be a good option.
You get all the power and control with decent support, but none of the
administrative overhead of servicing hardware, and AV, etc.



"Mark Arnold [MVP]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...