SuperSite Blog

'has one across the board' should be 'won', I presume.

Simon

Yep. Once you go GMail & GCal, you never go back.

Then you say "Wow, this cloud computing's great, I reckon I'll try Google Docs & Spreadsheets".

And you realise why you love Office.

@Simongoldring - I think you'll find that the "one" Paul was referring to is a solution. Rather than saying that no one has "won" the contest for an across the board solution.

Nice eyes though. Always best to keep writers on their toes, or the internet will devolve entirely into L337 H4x0r5 hoo karnt spel.

Vendors such as Microsoft, Google and Apple want us to be married (or is that enslaved) to them. As Paul points out, the quality of vendor solutions vary by application. Some are great, such as Google email and Calendar, some are dinosaurs that should be extinct (I place Outlook in this group) and some are okay but bested by alternatives (think Google Docs vs. Word+Excel+PowerPoint).

Many people use a vendor's suite. Perhaps they are in an enterprise where the sysadmin dictates the applications. Perhaps they are typical users who want use their computers to accomplish tasks and not spend their lives in pursuit of a technology PhD.,

Geeks like us often try to work with best-in-breed applications creating our own customized suite of applications, both locally installed and web-based. Paul's mashup of Google email and Calendar, with Microsoft Office (local and web-based) are what I use. Other than email, I am ready to switch at a moment's notice. I only need something new and shiny to attract my attention.

The problem with the Google solutions is that many people are growing to distrust Google. I do, and would never my personal info to them, much less confidential communications..

Office has become a real Swiss Army Chainsaw. There is nothing that it can't do but for a large percentage of its user base it is overkill.

arstechnica.com/.../microsoft-word-1983---2009-rest-in-peace.ars

An interesting article from a 20-year Word veteran.

Paul, my advice to you, stick to the consumer view.  Your business view, especially when it comes to email is completely wrong.

I have seen some small companies, say 20 users or less switch to google for email.  Why?  Well they have or had a version of SBS and the box it ran on got old and needed to be replaced.  They only ever used maybe 20% of what SBS could do not because they did not like it, but because they were focused on their company and what it does and only use enough of any IT solution to achieve what they need to get done.  So the price to replace SBS and the hardware was way more than going to gmail for 20 users, and using a XP box for a simple file server.   Also they DONT REALLY CARE as much about their email data being in the cloud.

Now in any company that has an IT staff and say 100 or more employees, they are not ready to put sensitive data in the cloud for a few reasons.  Security is #1.  #2 is access.  Access as in your network connectivity.  At my company we have a main site, a DR site and then 30 small sites.  We use big nation wide vendors and yet monthy we have some sort of outage.  Sometimes it can take more than 24 hours to resolve issues with network connectivity, and its completely out of our hands.  Imagine if our users could not get the data in have in Outlook for that long?  Or say all of their data in sharepoint or on a cloud file server?

Also have you ever heard of a roaming profile?  You know whatever computer you go to in your company your Outlook profile will be there.  Add in OWA, the best webmail I have ever used, and Active Sync to say an iPhone and you pretty much have your Outlook data where ever.  The funny thing is, I have had this ability long before gmail was even around.  It was a Blackberry server back with Exchange 5.5, but as my wife has been saying for YEARS, you can never get away from work and that is because of Exchange and its many access points.  All Google is doing is copying that model but with less features.  Same for MobileMe, in fact MobileMe while not free, offers more Exchange like features than Google does.

As far as office goes, IMHO as long as the saved files are kept at the corporation, Office has peaked.  I am not saying Open Office will replace it, but I am saying that we are still sitting on Office 2003 at my company, even though we own Office 2007 and soon Office 2010, because the users are not asking for anything better and we are not in a hurry to fire up a big project with replacing Office 2003 anytime soon.

Many, many corporations are just not ready to put their data in the cloud.  Lots of little things are there now, like virus and spam scanning of email, but the email data arrives and stays in the corporation.  Lots of other stuff like check/credit card authorization that used to run on servers at a company now pass through encrypted lines to vendors that specialize in this service and in those cases they dont house any real data they just provide a real time service.

Gmail is great for single users, and small organizations that don't have or need an IT staff or even an office for that matter.  Lots of people/organizations fit that model.  Lots dont.

Ok, so I might be a little weird saying this, but I actually like WinLiveMail and WinLiveCal better. And yes, I have used GCal and GMail. But I can defiantly see everything moving to "the cloud." I've even started editing video in "the cloud."

Interesting!

I actually prefer using Outlook even for my GMail account than reading the email on the web page. The one thing I like about GMail is the new email notification (which Live Mail does not support). Other than that, I think GMail is simple, but overrated. It's not the next best thing since sliced bread. In fact, as new features get added to GMail, it's starting to look more busy and confusing.

The best thing I can say about Google Docs is that I'm glad that my company still uses Office.

rrode74:

Very good comments all around!  Yes, you speak of the real corporate world.

"Gmail is great for single users, and small organizations that don't have or need an IT staff or even an office for that matter."

I agree. My friend  helped a non-profit set up a GMail apps account for all of its 50 employees. He did get them to install Thunderbird as the mail client. I heard its going well so far.

I also don't use Google solutions because of privacy issues. Google doesn't [exactly] care about privacy(they look through your email and web history). Microsoft at least does care about privacy.

So just because you don't use advanced functionality and need everything simple, it shouldn't exist? Outlook 2010 is super-responsive, fast, not bloated at all and you can put anything you use most frequently the way you want and the rest of the advanced functionality off.

Why would you consider email and calendaring "online activities?" Assuming by online you mean via a web browser.  99.9% of my email and calendaring are done on the desktop.  

Honestly, how often do you access your gmail from a computer thats not you own?  With smartphones, netbooks and laptops, I would bet very rarely.  So why not just configure outlook/activesync?  Its not hard and it doesnt take that long.

Really, Paul, you always make it sound like MSs Exchange group should be waking up in a cold sweat at night worrying about gmail. I think you are in the minority. The features provided in the Exchange/Outlook solution are so far superior to gmail/calendar that most of us who use it, and administrate it, would never make the change to gmail willingly.  The cost saving is a red herring. I've done the math. At 3 years Exchange vs gmail breaks even. At 5 years Exchanged is cheaper.

Outlook/Exchange is better than Google Mail/Calendar.

"...and each day, 3,000 more organizations join them."

Umm.... 3000 companies join them EVERY DAY?! Seriously? Where's the evidence of this?

That's 21,000 companies a week, no less than 90,000 per month, and no less than 1,080,000 per year... so I can't help but think that using their math would conclude the entire world would "go Google" with a year or so. Nevermind that if it's really growing so rapidly, that the 3,000/day figure will also grow faster as everybody jumps on board.

And yet, not one single company I do business with has standardized on Google. Not one. I don't even know any that are actively considering it in their organization.

I'm sorry, but the numbers don't add up.

As Chrome did, all Google Docs does is push everyone else working in the space to do better than they have or would have done.  Mission accomplished.

That its on the cloud and not a desktop is a win for Google.

"The features provided in the Exchange/Outlook solution are so far superior to gmail/calendar that most of us who use it, and administrate it,"

Like Mac users, this group is a minority.

@Ocean: "all Google Docs does is push everyone else working in the space to do better than they have or would have done."

I'm confused by your statement.  Are you trying to say that one can work better with Google Docs than with Office.  Please clarify.

-------

The only thing I use GMail for is testing to see if the changes I make in Exchange work.  And when I use GMail for that limited application, I dislike my experience.  I, albeit rarely, use Yahoo! and Live Mail also, both of which I enjoy more than GMail.  

As for the other Google Apps, Google Docs is the only one I am familiar with.  And, once again, I don't particulalry enjoy that experience either.

Maybe it's my familiarity with Office, I don't know, but I don't like any of the Google products that are offered.  I would use OpenOffice before I would use Google Docs.

@Ocean: "Like Mac users, this group is a minority."

Do you have numbers to back that up?

Even if you are correct, and Exchange/Outlook is a minority, that doesn't take away from the fact that Exchange/Outlook are superior.

This commentary I read yesterday about MS Word was succinct.  It doesn't name Google Docs as the answer...it just points out that we have a lot of various options in the Web-centric world we live in.  

"Word, to this day, is still largely a digital representation of a bunch of 8½ by 11 pieces of paper.

--

Go into any office today and you'll find people using Word to write documents. Some people still print them out and file them in big metal cabinets to be lost forever, but again this is simply an old habit, like a phantom itch on a severed limb. Instead of printing them, most people will email them to their boss or another coworker, who is then expected to download the email attachment and edit the document, then return it to them in the same manner. At some point the document is considered "finished", at which point it gets dropped off on a network share somewhere and is then summarily forgotten.

People keep doing this, but it is an astoundingly awful way to work.

--

Word was designed in a different era, for a very specific purpose. We don't work that way anymore. Microsoft has added a metric ton of collaboration features to Word over the years to try and adapt to this reality, from Track Changes to Sharepoint integration. I've used almost all of them, and not only are they somewhat clunky, but getting other people to use them is like pushing a rock uphill. There has to be a better way."

arstechnica.com/.../microsoft-word-1983---2009-rest-in-peace.ars

"I'm confused by your statement.  Are you trying to say that one can work better with Google Docs than with Office."

No, I'm saying that Google Docs is partly responsible for pushing MS to make sure it's cloud offerings are as perfect as can be.  Working in the cloud = Googles competitors.

"Even if you are correct, and Exchange/Outlook is a minority, that doesn't take away from the fact that Exchange/Outlook are superior."

As are the PC's that Apple builds and perhaps the OS as well.

It doesn't matter, as this crowd always says.  It's the numbers that count, right?

As one analyst said:

" Their apparent goal for Windows 7 was merely to make something better than Windows Vista. If Microsoft were a healthy, functional, competitive company willing and able to honestly assess its own shortcomings — like the Microsoft of the ’90s that conquered the entire industry — their goal would have been to make something not just better than Vista, but better than anything else on the market, including Mac OS X."

I service a decent number of companies and none of them would consider going to a cloud only solution for anything that is mission critical. As it is now, some clients have enough Internet access downtime to make things difficult at times. If all their data was dependant on Internet access, they would require a 100% uptime guarantee from their ISP and I have never found one that can do that.

@Ocean: "As are the PC's that Apple builds and perhaps the OS as well."

I wouldn't go that far.  In any case, I wasn't saying that Exchange/Outlook is superior to GMail (even though I think it is), I was merely stating that market share is NOT the determining factor in superiority.

You and I both know that the numbers do not determine superiority.

"If all their data was dependant on Internet access, they would require a 100% uptime guarantee from their ISP and I have never found one that can do that."

I work for a nationally known hospital -- we've got two ISP's, and we have pretty much 100% uptime between the two.   Not all companies have this though.

"You and I both know that the numbers do not determine superiority."

Is that also true in the case of IE and Windows and perhaps even MS Office?

I don't expect de Silentio or anyone else to answer the question I asked above.

"I've used almost all of them, and not only are they somewhat clunky, but getting other people to use them is like pushing a rock uphill. There has to be a better way."

It's precisely because they ARE "somewhat clunky" that people don't use them.

The best way to proofread is still on paper with a red pen. Anything that's going to be published should be proofed that way, and it's going to be a very long time before that will change.

Hey Paul, got any proof, or are you making stuff up?

"And last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began working toward a formal investigation of Apple when it demanded that the companies explain a recent episode in which Apple denied Google the right to publish a communications application on Apple's iPhone. Apple-friendly press and analysts immediately blamed Apple's US-based wireless partner AT&T for the denial, leading AT&T to issue a statement that says it has absolutely nothing to do with the iPhone App Store. That places the blame squarely where it belongs: on Apple."

windowsitpro.com/.../Index.cfm

And here is why Paul should do research before blaming Apple:

"*Applications like this, which redirects a TV signal to a personal computer, are specifically prohibited under our terms of service.*

--

So, sure, it’s true that “AT&T does not manage or approve applications for the App Store”. But AT&T does require that the apps Apple approves for use in the U.S. adhere to AT&T’s interpretation of their own terms of service."

daringfireball.net/.../att-slingplayer

@Ocean: Yes, have I given you the impression otherwise?

Let me qualify my statement a little, just in case.  If we are looking at this purely from a market standpoint, the numbers are all that matter.  But if we look from a usability/functionality/familiarity standpoint, the market share numbers only factor in because of familiarity.  And even in this case of familiarity, it isn't the market share itself that makes a product superior, it is the fact that people know how to use it "instinctively" that make it superior.

Now, with Internet browsers familiarity isn't really a key factor, because they all generally work the same way.  With Office applications, I think an argument can be made either way.  With OSX and Windows, familiarity is a big factor, because they operate in vastly different ways.  The problem is, since Windows has a much greater market share, more people are familiar with Windows.  

So, am I going back on what I said at the beginning?  No, because Mac OSX might be suprior than Windows.  But I wouldn't know because I only use Windows.

"Steve Jobs also noted during a Q&A session that AT&T is actively policing voice-over-IP apps.  He stated that AT&T is the reason why apps like Skype are WiFi only.  "

www.dailytech.com/.../article15880.htm

@Ocean: "I don't expect de Silentio or anyone else to answer the question I asked above."

By the way, I was working on the answer before your comment.

How could anyone here say that running an Exchange server is not expensive and time consuming? We ditched Exchange for Kerio Mailserver for thousands of dollars less. It works on every platform, most email clients, and has built-in ActiveSynch, calendaring, groups, LDAP, resources, built-in webmail, etc. Could not be happier with it. Saving us $18K/year for a mid-sized company and it's basically set and forget.

Can't imagine what an Enterprise must be paying to run Exchange.

techman.merb, you say "... require a 100% uptime guarantee from their ISP ..."

ISP singular? If you need access, you need multiple ISPs selected for disparate routing to the world (as with Qwest DSL and Broadstripe cable here)..

Among the banks, Wells-Fargo figured this out in the 1980s: you didn't see a branch with only one ATM. What wasn't visible was that the ATMs were connected by different networks, with contracts requiring physical separation throughout the runs (usually going down different streets right from the branch). Other California banks didn't.

And on cue, Ocean goes into off-topic tangents...

Here's a thought.  If you'd like to discuss things posted on windowsitpro.com, you could always...oh, I don't know....comment over there?  No?

OT: "leading AT&T to issue a statement that says it has absolutely nothing to do with the iPhone App Store"

Ocean, you should know better than to question Paul. AT&T clearly has a lot to do with the iPhone App Store (as you reported, above), and their statement did NOT read the way Paul reported it, but the truth never mattered to his head-nodding minions.

Sandman...get a life.

BladRnr:

My Exchange server requires very little time from me. Its pretty much set it and forget it.  The Kerio server does seem to be a less expensive solution, but I have had no experience it with so I can't say how it compares to Exchange in functionality or usability. I'll have to take it for a test drive.  We are looking to upgrade our 5 year old Exchange 2003 install next year.

When compared to the $50/user/year for Google, Exchange is cheaper in the long run. More to the point of the post, it seems we agree that the server\client solution is better than a browse based\cloud solution.

I have more to say about superiority.  I got to thinking that IT products are nothing but tools that we use to accomplish tasks.  When we talk about one product being superior than another, we have to look at the way the product is used and how well that product can be used to accomplish it's task.  

Take the example of a hammer: If I am merely pouding in a nail, a 16oz hammer is just as functional and relatively easy to use as a 20oz hammer.  However, if something is really stuck (like my brake rotors) a 16oz hammer may not be able to do the job and a 20oz hammer will be able to do the job.  In the case of the brake rotor, the 20oz hammer was far supior to the 16oz hammer.  But for just pounding nails they are equal (for the most part).

The superiority of Mac and Windows is analagous, in a small way.  I'm sure that Mac is superior to Windows in certain tasks, and Windows is superior in other tasks.  However, they are still tools that can only be used for specific tasks.  

I don't want to sound like I am posing an "Apples and Oranges" argument, because I am not.  But I don't think we can call Windows or Mac superior in general.  There are too many factors involved.  And, frankly, in the end it boils down to a subjective preference anyways.

@BladRnr:

I will say that Exchange is not expensive and time consuming.  The fact that I work in k-12 education means that I get hefty (and I mean HEFTY) discounts on all MS products, including Exchange.  I spent a portion of last summer setting up the server and have not touched it since.  Set and forget, is what you called it.

I also have never used Kerio, but my guess is that if they don't offer the same discounts for education that MS does, my Exchange solution is just as expensive as any other solution (TCO wise, of course).

Additionally, my backup solution has an Exchange agent, which allows granular backup and restore.  Every email, calendar item, contact, etc. can be restored without having to restore anything but the lost infromation itself.  I ask, in trying to learn, can you do that with your email server?

I had a client that was pushed (by their ISP - a small DSL "business ISP" that isn't Bell or Rogers) to switch to hosting all their data on Google, and to use Google Docs.  They weren't made aware of their privacy issues, and because they were a regulated business, they got into a lot of legal trouble because of it.

They are now threatening legal action against their former ISP.

Besides that, they HATED Gmail because Google doesn't do CRM.  They also found it slow, clunky, and with Google's track record for outages (17 in the last 6 months), extremely unreliable compared to their former setup.  Outlook is much faster, especially because they have to cross-reference several pieces of communication, and index them with documents in their CRM plugin.  Time & billing for phone calls can also be tracked and referenced by contact directly in Outlook.

They are now licensing new copies of Office with Software Assurance.

Be aware that Google & co. can upgrade their systems whenever they like.  Upgrade and maintenance windows aren't done on customer time, so you are at their mercy.  On-site solutions can be scheduled for off-hour maintenance.  Google can't.

I just do not see how the cloud is going to work.

I use outlook to connect all of my email accounts into one easy to use space on my desktop, I don't want to browse to my email, that takes to much time.

Also I do not like the idea of keeping my data on anything other than my hard drive, that way I can keep it secure.

I am also part of that niche group called PC gamers and I personally dislike on-line games, I want to have a single user experience on my desktop.

I use GMail - personally. But I also rarely use it in the online web form.

As for my multiple other accounts, I use Windows Mail at home and Outlook at work. And only reason why I don't use Outlook at home is that it's an overkill for my home usage.

And like others I don't get all those touting of Gmail/GCal vs Outlook. While, yes, Outlook is a huge app, it is also a reason why it is THE app of choice for many. People do need all those "bits and pieces" which Outlook has and Gmail doesn't, some more, some less, but a lot of people stay with Outlook because of this.

Btw, with connection reliability and speed issues I have both at work and home, I'd never allow for a "cloud-only" solution for any business data. Not having access to data can "kill" you in corporate world.

My favorite personal usage of e-mail services is, like I've said, combination of Gmail (which keeps my data "backed up" on "cloud" and always accessible from web) with a desktop client that still keeps all the data on my hard drive as well. So if my Net connection is gone, I can still browse thousands of e-mails on my hard drive; if I'm not on my computer I can always connect to web-mail that has all those emails stored online; and if I have both my desktop and online connection, I have no worries, but I'll still use desktop app because it makes my work much faster and reliable than online solution.

So to conclude - like many people, I agree that not even Gmail is a corporate solution for corporate environment.

Regarding multiple ISP connections...unfortunately I am located in Montreal, Canada. We have relatively limited options when it comes to Internet access. Basically we have to choose berween DSL from various ISPs who are all running on the Bell backbone - so if Bell goes down so do the rest of them- or ONE cable Internet provider which is not available in many industrial areas. Some areas have frequent Internet outages or slowdowns and running exclusively on the cloud would be a foolish thing to do for most companies that I service.

Some of my clients are photo design firms and storing large images upwards of 100 MB in the cloud would not be practical in any sense of the term.

Not to mention that for many small businesses in today's economy paying for multiple Internet connections is an expense they do not wish to make.

"Sandman...get a life."

The irony of this is astounding.  It would mean so much more if it weren't coming from someone who spends much of the day making NUMEROUS comments on virtually every article Paul posts, cross-referencing all his off-topic posts with other articles that had to take time to dig up.

I'll work on that whole life thing though.  Thanks for the tip.

Exchange does cost money.  Throw out that you get education discounts means nothing as the vast majority of Exchange users dont get that discount.

To be legal, it at the very min, a single server (hardware), Windows server license, Exchange server license, Windows server cal's and Exchange server cal's.

You do get a break when you are talking thousands of users, but still, figure $90 for every user and that is Open license (windows and exchange cal, at a discount price).   The Exchange server license is around $550 for a standard, $3500 for Enterprise version, to say nothing for the Windows servers license Exchange sits on top of.  

SBS 2008 is much cheaper but once you hit 75 and then 250 users you have to move past it.

Technically Exchange is no walk in the park.  Its harder than rebuilding a Windows PC, but its not rocket science.  In larger companies an Exchange environment can get really complicated, with many Exchange servers that are clustered, and running different roles.  A full time Exchange Administrator in a large company is going to make at least 60K up to 90K.

Google would be cheaper in the low end and the larger end.

Paul, are you still in Amsterdam ? Don't go into the coffee shops too often. Gmail better then OWA ?

It doesn't even come close. As to companies moving over to the cloud for their email solutions, nah not going to happen.

"And on cue, Ocean goes into off-topic tangents..."

Like robertsjoe, he doesn't need any excuses to do so...

@rrode74:

BladRnr asked how anyone could say that Exchange is not expensive or time consuming.  I answered him.  It is neither expensive nor time consuming for me.

"because they were a regulated business, they got into a lot of legal trouble because of it.

They are now threatening legal action against their former ISP."

We'd have seen it in the press AND Paul would have blogged about it.

Ocean, I don't know the motivation behind your comment that I wouldn't answer your question, but it seemed rather arrogent to me, like you thought you caught me in a literary trap that I wouldn't be able to get myself out of.

I know my answer to your question didn't involve any questions for you to answer, but perhaps you can make a comment about what I said, since you were so confident that I wouldn't answer you.  Otherwise I have no alternative than to think that you let yourself believe you had tripped me up with your question.

Thanks.

@Ocean

Search the web, you'll find plenty of cases where google violated privacy. Paul doesn't have to blog everything btw. Anyways, a cloud solution can't work because not every company has an always on internet all the time. Would you really rely on google servers to regulate your business? Google hasn't always been trustworthy privacy issue. Also, giving too much power to one company is bad , wat is google isn't feeling so well one day and all the businesses relying on google's cloud stop working?

"We'd have seen it in the press AND Paul would have blogged about it."

Sorry, but no, you wouldn't.

Legal cases in Canada are kept confidential.  I didn't explain the nature of the business, nor did I mention the name of the companies in question, thereby not divulging enough information to undermine the case.

All I can say is that the ISP recommended that the company use Google, and Google is on a blacklist of data hosting providers by the regulatory group due to online privacy issues.  The company got in a lot of legal hot water with the regulatory group and are facing fines, and the company is going after the ISP for bad advice.

They also found out that the ISP is a Google reseller, and they make money off of every company that signs up with Google - regardless of whether or not it's a paid service.  The bad part about it is that there are other regulated businesses that this ISP is dealing with, and the company wants the information to come out that the ISP has a "backroom deal" with Google so that private information isn't provided to untrusted third-parties, even though Google's terms of use advocates that they have the right to do what they like with any hosted data.

Some of the information deals with things like social insurance numbers, health records, and passport information.

@de Silento, and I am sure there are some people that love UAC in Vista, its just not even close to the norm.

"but perhaps you can make a comment about what I said"

I will, but unlike this morning, I'm pressed for time and just 'passing through'.  I promise you a response in this thread or the next tonight or tomorrow.

"SBS 2008 is much cheaper but once you hit 75 and then 250 users you have to move past it."

When you're dealing with an IT infrastructure, you should purchase something that meets the size requirements of your company.

SBS is designed for "small businesses" of up to 75 users.

EBS is designed for "medium-sized businesses" of up to 300 users.

Both are very cost-effective ways of getting a server-based IT infrastructure that includes Exchange.

Above 300 users, and you get into corporate enterprise-level IT infrastructures, and you're looking at a setup that would require a more scalable, but modular approach.  Your TCO goes up, but the TCO/user is usually lower, and you also gain some extra control and flexibility, which is usually required for a large-scale enterprise because that's when you also need a full-time IT staff to manage it.

SBS is designed for MSP's and off-site IT workers.  EBS is designed for a very small IT team or maybe even just a well-educated individual.  Corporate deployments are for larger IT teams.

In each, Exchange licensing is also scalable, with a slight advantage to larger volume purchases.

To Paul Google and AAPL are the enemy.  Every misstep gets blogged.  But don't let that stop you from making stuff up.  At least I link back to the sources of my assertions.

"To Paul Google [is] the enemy."

You're kidding right?

Paul uses Google cloud-based stuff more than most people would dare to (certainly moreso than most businesses would).

@Ocean:

www.google.com/.../tos

Section 11, especially 11.1 and 11.2.

That's proof enough.

@Ocean

"at least I link back to the sources of my assertions"

Paul also puts links in his entries to sources.

"But don't let that stop you from making stuff up"

so ur accusing someone of lying? you can't prove that they are lying.

At least Paul tries to be unbiased instead of a blinded windows fanboy. He criticizes microsoft a lot in "windows weekly"

@ De Silentio, PMCGrath

Kerio Mailserver has a one-time, upfront fee based on users (for us, 80 users around $2600). That includes software and one year of free tech support and updates. After that it costs us $600/year for tech support/updates. Runs on any platform (Windows/Mac/Lunix). iPhone functionality is outstanding. The set-up was a breeze. I have it running on an Apple Xserve with mirrored 1TB HDs for storage. And I perform daily back-ups to tape. We are a Mac shop and I got tired of our company calendar taking a nose dive every six months and having to restore it by hand in Exchange. Maybe it was because we use Entourage as a mail client. Kerio has been very impressive so far since February.

The built-in back-up feature says it will do a complete restore. Have not had to perform one so I can't say. But the rest of the set-up was so easy I have to believe restores are also.

In the long run, I can't see going to cloud-based email. Our communication with clients is way too important for our business. But to each their own.

"To Paul Google and AAPL are the enemy.  Every misstep gets blogged. "

Yep. EVERY negative thing he can find gets posted.

Microsoft's disaster financial reports "Not a Bad Year When you think about it"

Google divesting a bad AOL investment, "Google loses Big"

Unsubstantiated reports on the FCC investigating Apple.

On and on.

He just can't help it.  Actually, he can, but he earns a living by not helping it.

@BladRnr: "The built-in back-up feature says it will do a complete restore. Have not had to perform one so I can't say."

I know I might sound patronizing, but I make this comment in all sincerety to help.  If I am interpreting you correctly, you have never done a complete restore from your backup.  I recommend that you try full backup and restores periodically to make sure that they work.  Best to be fully prepared for a distaster.

"In the long run, I can't see going to cloud-based email. "

Me neither.  We used an obscure email solution called FirstClass for nearly 14 years, then finally decided that it was time to upgrade to Exchange.

On another note, we have done some "in house" cloud-based software, mainly SharePoint (wasn't my idea, I'm just along for the ride).

Or chuckb84, Paul is human and holds a  opinion and writes it in a blog, that gets people reading it, and he was nice enough to give us a comments section. You can dislike what he says, but you do understand it is his opinion, don't rely on this blog for all of your IT news I check a lot of sources.

@ocean

I am afraid that Paul has proved time and time again that his knowledge of competition law is very thin.

Coincidentally he often airs his legal pronouncements on Apple around the same time that Microsoft is some hot water.

Here's a good example: Paul, Sept 07,

"and if the EU made Microsoft decouple Windows Media Player from Windows, you can pretty much expect the same treatment of the iPod and iTunes"

How's that case coming Paul?

"The Cloud" it's a great cliche, but here I sit about 15 miles in as the crows fly from Apple corporate headquarters and the only high speed internet I can get is satellite. Admittedly by choice, some things are more important than technology but we are not even close to having the always connected society needed to have the cloud be little more than a bit of redundant storage or a means for mobile computing to be viable.

Storage is so cheap and getting cheaper the only reason I need online is to keep additional copies available to other parties for collaboration. Online storage is increasingly a target for hackers, and none of the online players have the reliability to be considered a full time solution. If anything Google appears to be getting flakier rather than more reliable. There have been a number of these online "cloud" based backup solutions that have just disappeared overnight leaving their customers totally hosed unless they also had a local copy.

Maybe Paul's been listening to too many sci-fi books on Audible. We'll have wormholes before we get constant online access 24-7, count on it.

Guess I am a Luddite, or maybe just a realist.

A couple of my clients have 'gone Google' abandoning all their desktop MS products including Office entirely.  Their staff collaborate documents online, schedule, chat, email, etc... and travel on the road like they were in the office.  I have to say that yes, there are some companies who have left Office behind and never even glanced back.

Pingback from  Going Google: It’s not a slam dunk yet, sorry | The Software Nook