<dd class="wp-caption-dd zemanta-img-attribution" style="font-size: 0.8em;">
Image via <a href="http://www.crunchbase.com">CrunchBase</a>
</dd>
</dl>
A coworker sent this along. I’ve had this issue on a few contacts and didn’t really have time to delve into it.
Name removed to protect the innocent and good intentions. Be very careful with this and make sure you have a backup of all data that you plan to manipulate.
<dd class="wp-caption-dd zemanta-img-attribution" style="font-size: 0.8em;">
Image via <a href="http://www.crunchbase.com">CrunchBase</a>
</dd>
</dl>
At WWDC 2009, I stood up in a session on Snow Leopard server and lightly rattled Apple‘s cage about its poor scaling guidance for the product. They were spending a great deal of time talking about the benefits of Wiki Server 2, but there was little to take away from the session on what to tell any prospective customers regarding cost.
<dd class="wp-caption-dd zemanta-img-attribution" style="font-size: 0.8em;">
Image via <a href="http://www.crunchbase.com">CrunchBase</a>
</dd>
</dl>
Paul Thurrott posted a nice attaboy to the MSN folks today for releasing a wallpaper product that will check Microsoft for updates to your operating system.
Just in case you’re ever wondering what can make a Mac user so annoyingly smug… as a relatively new Mac user (2+ years), I received the following message on Skype.
Last week I had to do some serious debugging on storage copy replication. We discovered that one of our SCC clusters had decided to quit replicating to the SCR node at the other site. We’re not sure why (we think it’s because the SCR node was rebooted and replication was not cleanly suspended), but the ramifications of failed replication are interesting.
I’m all about negativity today. Sorry.
Anyway, I’ve had something nagging at me for a while now and I think I’ve just figured it out. Powershell is Microsoft‘s answer to having a dumb command line through the Win95 – Win2003 years and it’s quite powerful, as the name implies. Microsoft likes it so much that they makes most of the Exchange 2007 administration efforts in the Exchange Management Shell, a derivative of Powershell that contains Exchange-specific cmdlets.
One item you’ve probably learned by now if you’re an Exchange admin working on a 2007 deployment is that Microsoft has changed the behavior of the recipient update policy. Most of you won’t care about this and that’s just fine. You shouldn’t. I would dare say that if your Exchange environment is engineered well and planned out the way Microsoft probably expects it to be, you should have almost no issues whatsoever.
I’m seeing screenshots on the web about Windows 7. In particular, the Paint and Wordpad applications are showing up on Paul Thurrott’s blog site.
I still have yet to find anyone who thinks the Office 2007 ribbon was a good idea. I mean anyone outside of Microsoft, that is. Well, and other than Paul Thurrott. Real-world users that I work with every day hate the bloody thing and I’m consistently asked how to turn it off.
The delegates and the manager must all use Outlook 2007 when you use delegates in Outlook 2007.
Important post out there for you sysadmins dealing with Exchange and delegation scenarios.
This post is focused on those of you who have decided to deploy Exchange in a resource forest. You’re in for tears. While the resource forest is technically a supported deployment method for Exchange, I’m going to point out what can go wrong in your Exchange world that will keep your admins up at night.
Let’s start with the definition of a resource forest, just in case you’re not sure. The resource forest approach means that you have one Active Directory forest where your user accounts live and another Active Directory forest where your application (Exchange, in this case) lives. You have user accounts in the resource forest that are disabled and then externally associated with the users in the user forest. This of course, requires a trust between the two forests, which you likely have anyway, right? Right.