Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat
Notice I haven't said anything about forcing Microsoft to make Exchange more interoperable. But its lack of interoperability (plus CALs and that monstrosity of a database) are very good reasons to avoid it or leave it if possible.

I hate that jet database as much as anyone, but my job is to deal with it, just like I had to deal with their stupid free/busy architecture before they changed it. Somehow what's important to me gets re-characterized as "cupholders", and what's important to you is all that anybody should really care about.

268 posted on 04/15/2008 1:07:52 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies ]


To: tacticalogic
Somehow what's important to me gets re-characterized as "cupholders", and what's important to you is all that anybody should really care about.

I'm sorry if the issue was that important. I have been involved in a lot of contracting and have seen many requirements drawn so that only one product would fit the bill, even if the one defining requirement was a cupholder. For example, instead of stating the free/busy architecture must not cause performance problems, you state that you need a specific free/busy architecture and describe the one that's in the new Exchange.

Move to iCal and no more Jet database. As far as the architecture, I don't even know if the problem exists for iCal. Exchange's problem could have been another case of Microsoft engineering itself into a corner, not applicable to anyone else.

271 posted on 04/15/2008 1:24:47 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson