4 ms·

> Failing to follow best practices, using dodgy hardware, and cutting corners are the reasons for problems I'm sure there are some SMEs who are happy to throw

> Failing to follow best practices, using dodgy hardware, and cutting corners are the reasons for problems I'm sure there are some SMEs who are happy to throw serious budget at doing on-prem Exchange "right". For everyone else, I'm not sure what they're supposed to do.

EvanAnderson 6y ago
Everyone else pays for monthly Office 365 subscriptions and ends up spending more money. (Which is what I recommend now, but it galls me to no end.) I don't buy the "Exchange is expensive to support" argument. It's cheaper on-prem than paying for the subscription. We always saw break-even at around 16 - 20 months. I have billing records for a small business Customer w/ a single Exchange 2016 server for last year that amount to 6.5 hours for the entire year, including installing CU's 16 thru 18 (CU 19 fell in this year). Yes-- a piece of their overall Windows Update application budget applies to Exchange, as does the amortized cost of backup software, and server computer and support hardware. Even w/ the OS license, Exchange license, and CALs at 120x an Office 365 E3 monthly subscription they're still money ahead over the 4+ years they've been running Exchange.
- walrus01 6y ago
  However from the point of view of a medium sized business paying for office365, in terms of dollar per month per employee, they're getting much more than just exchange, they're getting onedrive, sharepoint, teams, and the office suite software itself as well.
  - EvanAnderson 6y ago
    For sure. And then there's the CapEx/OpEx tax games to take advantage of, too. It's not a bad deal on the whole, but I think it's overhyped as being better than it really is. Moving to subscriptions results in a net increase in spend for organizations that were executing on-prem IT well and frugally. That's the only game now. I just think it's disingenuous to say that it's a cost savings. I reject the massive availability increase argument too, at least in the US, because of the lack of competition in the ISP space and the tier of service that is available to SMEs in their budget. You spend more for the same stuff, are forced to "upgrade" (read: lose features, see changes in UI) at the whim of a third party, and may experiece decreased availability if you're unwilling to spend more on Internet connectivity. There "upsides" for sure, but too many people peddling hosted solutions fail to recognize downsides.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      I don’t buy that for 365 unless you’re a small Microsoft consultancy and admin is “free”. 365 is a really good value, even comparing it to running an large scale standalone environment. Ditto for Google Workplace. For almost any other product, I subscriptions always drive more cost than value. The

EvanAnderson 6y ago

Everyone else pays for monthly Office 365 subscriptions and ends up spending more money. (Which is what I recommend now, but it galls me to no end.) I don't buy the "Exchange is expensive to support" argument. It's cheaper on-prem than paying for the subscription. We always saw break-even at around 16 - 20 months. I have billing records for a small business Customer w/ a single Exchange 2016 server for last year that amount to 6.5 hours for the entire year, including installing CU's 16 thru 18 (CU 19 fell in this year). Yes-- a piece of their overall Windows Update application budget applies to Exchange, as does the amortized cost of backup software, and server computer and support hardware. Even w/ the OS license, Exchange license, and CALs at 120x an Office 365 E3 monthly subscription they're still money ahead over the 4+ years they've been running Exchange.

walrus01 6y ago
However from the point of view of a medium sized business paying for office365, in terms of dollar per month per employee, they're getting much more than just exchange, they're getting onedrive, sharepoint, teams, and the office suite software itself as well.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  For sure. And then there's the CapEx/OpEx tax games to take advantage of, too. It's not a bad deal on the whole, but I think it's overhyped as being better than it really is. Moving to subscriptions results in a net increase in spend for organizations that were executing on-prem IT well and frugally. That's the only game now. I just think it's disingenuous to say that it's a cost savings. I reject the massive availability increase argument too, at least in the US, because of the lack of competition in the ISP space and the tier of service that is available to SMEs in their budget. You spend more for the same stuff, are forced to "upgrade" (read: lose features, see changes in UI) at the whim of a third party, and may experiece decreased availability if you're unwilling to spend more on Internet connectivity. There "upsides" for sure, but too many people peddling hosted solutions fail to recognize downsides.
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    I don’t buy that for 365 unless you’re a small Microsoft consultancy and admin is “free”. 365 is a really good value, even comparing it to running an large scale standalone environment. Ditto for Google Workplace. For almost any other product, I subscriptions always drive more cost than value. The