The reality of life in the server room isn’t always as it is imagined at Microsoft. We’re not reflex-upgraders. Many administrators harbour the guilty secret of a server contentedly puttering away in the corner, with an aging application running SQL Server 6.5 on Windows NT. In many such cases any thought of upgrade is unrealistic; it’s simpler and cheaper to unhook the server from the domain, and let it serve out its declining years in peace.

There is a strong independent streak within the server room, even in IT departments with a strong loyalty to Microsoft. A great number of organizations said ‘no thanks’ to Vista as a standard workstation platform, and chose to stay with XP. It is the same with Microsoft Exchange. If there is no compelling business reason to upgrade from Exchange Server 2003, then why bother to do it? Many organizations are still engaged in the process of upgrading to Exchange Server 2007 and aren’t even thinking of Exchange Server 2010 yet despite the attractiveness of the new version, or remain on Exchange Server 2003 in order to leapfrog to Exchange Server 2010.

Occasionally, frustrated by the glacial pace of upgrades within IT departments, Microsoft tries to force their hands. One example of this is their failure to provide a direct upgrade path form Windows XP to Windows 7. Another example was their initial declaration that Exchange Server 2007 wouldn’t be supported on Windows Server 2008 R2.

The latter was a contrived, marketing-led attempt to force a simultaneous upgrade to Exchange 2010. The arguments must have seemed sound: Windows Server 2008 R2 is a compelling upgrade. In order to have the new OS, you have to have the new Exchange. However, the idea of a simultaneous Exchange 2010 and Server 2008 R2 upgrade is just too risky for most IT departments to consider.

Fortunately, in the face of fierce opposition from many influential organizations, many of whom even considered other options such as a move to Google Apps, Microsoft relented, and committed to update Exchange 2007 so that it had full support for Windows Server 2008 R2.

It was reassuring that the marketing arm of Microsoft listened. The Software Engineers within Microsoft are much more inclined than the Marketing people to realize how vital it is to provide support for aging versions of server products. Those of us who struggle with the realities of supporting existing applications in the corporate environment must surely welcome Microsoft’s willingness to understand better what our pressure points are.

Cheers,

Michael Francis