• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Internal exchange vs hosted exchange

A

aliuhz

#1
Hi, for an office of about 12 people, I'm deciding whether to do hosted
exchange or internal/managed.. is hosted better? it appears to be
cheaper, but is it better?

would you say the following link is an accurate depiction of savings?:
http://www.mpronto.com/lower.php?url=in-house-vs-hosted-exchange

can anyone recommend some good hosted exchange provider(s) if hosted is
in fact better ? thank you


--
aliuhz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm

http://forums.techarena.in
 

My Computer

C

Cliff Galiher - MVP

#2
Hosted vs In-house is a very personal thing and depends greatly on how
comfortable you are with your information on someone else's server, whether
you are a "lease or buy" person (like a car), and the skill level of your
staff to maintain.

With that said, there are certainly better comparisons that the link you
posted. For example, no 10-user installation needs a $10,000 server, a
$5,000 "server software licensing" (SBS is less expensive than that, as is
Window Server Standard), Exchange "Enterprise" (again, SBS has this, if you
bought it separately for a standalone install, you could buy standard, not
enterprise), Blackberry has a small business version that is FREE, and I
don't buy the $200/month for maintenance upgrades by a consultant figure
either.

In short, this company did *everything* possible to inflate the stand-alone
numbers and I would not do business that feels they have to resort to
unethical and distorted figures to make the sale.

There are certainly valid reasons to consider hosted, but if you go that
way, I've added this company onto my "not a chance in hell" list of
businesses to engage with.

--
Cliff Galiher
Microsoft has opened the Small Business Server forum on Technet! Check it
out!
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/smallbusinessserver/threads
Addicted to newsgroups? Read about the NNTP Bridge for MS Forums.

"aliuhz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> Hi, for an office of about 12 people, I'm deciding whether to do hosted
> exchange or internal/managed.. is hosted better? it appears to be
> cheaper, but is it better?
>
> would you say the following link is an accurate depiction of savings?:
> http://www.mpronto.com/lower.php?url=in-house-vs-hosted-exchange
>
> can anyone recommend some good hosted exchange provider(s) if hosted is
> in fact better ? thank you
>
>
> --
> aliuhz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
> View this thread:
> http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm
>
> http://forums.techarena.in
>
 

My Computer

R

Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]

#3
I agree those numbers are kind of wack...

and like Cliff said this really depends on where you want to go and your
skill levels.
More and more companies are moving to Hosted email solutions. (CLOUD)
If you are looking at Hosted, May I suggest Microsoft Online Services (BPOS)

If you just needed exchange it's only $5.00/user
And if you'd like SharePoint for Document Control and Live Meeting, and an
internal IM for only $5.00 more

At $10.00 per user it's cheaper than if you just wanted to use a third party
Web Conference solution.

You can get a free 30 day 20 user trial and information on how it works at
http://www.BPOSMadeEasy.com
or
http://www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com

Russ

--
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Remote Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com


"Cliff Galiher - MVP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> Hosted vs In-house is a very personal thing and depends greatly on how
> comfortable you are with your information on someone else's server,
> whether you are a "lease or buy" person (like a car), and the skill level
> of your staff to maintain.
>
> With that said, there are certainly better comparisons that the link you
> posted. For example, no 10-user installation needs a $10,000 server, a
> $5,000 "server software licensing" (SBS is less expensive than that, as is
> Window Server Standard), Exchange "Enterprise" (again, SBS has this, if
> you bought it separately for a standalone install, you could buy standard,
> not enterprise), Blackberry has a small business version that is FREE,
> and I don't buy the $200/month for maintenance upgrades by a consultant
> figure either.
>
> In short, this company did *everything* possible to inflate the
> stand-alone numbers and I would not do business that feels they have to
> resort to unethical and distorted figures to make the sale.
>
> There are certainly valid reasons to consider hosted, but if you go that
> way, I've added this company onto my "not a chance in hell" list of
> businesses to engage with.
>
> --
> Cliff Galiher
> Microsoft has opened the Small Business Server forum on Technet! Check it
> out!
> http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/smallbusinessserver/threads
> Addicted to newsgroups? Read about the NNTP Bridge for MS Forums.
>
> "aliuhz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]

>>
>> Hi, for an office of about 12 people, I'm deciding whether to do hosted
>> exchange or internal/managed.. is hosted better? it appears to be
>> cheaper, but is it better?
>>
>> would you say the following link is an accurate depiction of savings?:
>> http://www.mpronto.com/lower.php?url=in-house-vs-hosted-exchange
>>
>> can anyone recommend some good hosted exchange provider(s) if hosted is
>> in fact better ? thank you
>>
>>
>> --
>> aliuhz
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
>> View this thread:
>> http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm
>>
>> http://forums.techarena.in
>>
 

My Computer

A

aliuhz

#4
Wow, thank you for the information. I thought those prices seemed off,
and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
either- that is just wrong!

So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
exchange.
Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
conflict with each other)?

In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up? I'm
thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN. I
think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
said above, how important the data is. It is however an higher initial
cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).
I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
to find some help here in Southern California). Again, I appreciate
your advice and opinion. I will post cost comparison once completed, if
interested.


--
aliuhz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm

http://forums.techarena.in
 

My Computer

L

Leythos

#5
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

>
> Wow, thank you for the information. I thought those prices seemed off,
> and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
> either- that is just wrong!
>
> So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
> warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
> file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
> exchange.
You might get a CHEAP server for $1200, but it won't include the
Operating system for that price.

> Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
> conflict with each other)?
>
> In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
> get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up?
Any service that is real business class, and RR does offer Business
Class service, with at least 1 static IP, will work just fine. I run my
business (as well as 30+ other customers) using Time Warner Road Runner
business class internet service (others are on T1's and SDSL services).

> I'm
> thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN.
With SBS 2003/2008 there is little chance you will need to use a VPN.

> I
> think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
> said above, how important the data is. It is however an higher initial
> cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).
> I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
> am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
> comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
> it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
> charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
> to find some help here in Southern California). Again, I appreciate
> your advice and opinion. I will post cost comparison once completed, if
> interested.
You need, if you're a consultant, to join the MS Partner program and
then purchase the Action Pack, so that you can get SBS 2008 and other
products for a yearly fee of about $300/$400 depending on the media
option. You can use the A/P software to run your business and get 10
licenses for your business use.

Once you have the software you will want to install SBS 3 or 4 times so
that you get the hang of it, making sure to join a couple workstations
to the SBS network as well as your AV solution and other things,
including getting email working for yourself.



--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
[email protected] (remove 999 for proper email address)
 

My Computer

C

Cliff Galiher - MVP

#6
Answers inline.

--
Cliff Galiher
Microsoft has opened the Small Business Server forum on Technet! Check it
out!
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/smallbusinessserver/threads
Addicted to newsgroups? Read about the NNTP Bridge for MS Forums.

"aliuhz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> Wow, thank you for the information. I thought those prices seemed off,
> and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
> either- that is just wrong!
>
> So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
> warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
> file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
> exchange.
> Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
> conflict with each other)?
$1,200 seems a little low. If you aren't familiar with SBS then yes, it is
*designed* to be a file server, domain controller, and run DHCP. With that
in mind however, you won't be on a workgroup anymore, but on a domain, so
the server should be robust enough to help protect that data. In other
words, ECC RAM and hardware RAID. That usually pushes a good server above
$1,200.

>
> In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
> get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up? I'm
> thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN. I
> think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
> said above, how important the data is. It is however an higher initial
> cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).
You'll want a business-class internet service for email delivery (aka static
IP, contract allows hanging server off the connection, etc) but it doesn't
have to be a T1. I set up many customers with cable and DSL business
connections. Just plan acordingly, and remember that this is a business.
PROTECT that connection with a good firewall.

> I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
> am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
> comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
> it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
> charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
> to find some help here in Southern California). Again, I appreciate
> your advice and opinion. I will post cost comparison once completed, if
> interested.
The good news is you won't have to implement Exchange "on your own." One of
the features that makes SBS great is that the installation process and
wizards configure Exchange with some great best practices out of the gate
and automate great deal of the process that you'd have to do manually in an
enterprise situation. With that said, it *is* still a server and requires
some skill to maintain. I'd recommend picking up a good book on SBS from
Amazon if you choose to go this route.
 

My Computer

A

aliuhz

#7
Again, many thanks! I think this pretty much sums it up financially,
and was educational for me as it helped me see things from a different
perspective (as did this thread):
http://blog.bruteforcetech.com/index.php/archives/498 (pasted below).
...seems like everyone is inflating prices to emphasize how bad their
hosted services are needed. I like Microsoft's prices the best (Thanks
Russ, I'll be in touch when I find a client to go the hosted route).
Leythos- thanks for the recommendation on joining the MS partner
program, when I have some spare $ I will definitely do so- looks like
some pretty nice benefits there and the challenge of staying current is
appealing.




Exchange server vs. Google hosted
Google Mail vs. Exchange Server
April 6th, 2010 by Paul Sterley | Filed under Exchange Server, In the
Exchange Box, LOB Software, Not in the Exchange Box. Not long ago, I
received an e-mail from the owner of a business that I provide IT
services to. It was forwarded from an intern at the company. Here is
what it said:

From: [Intern]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:06 PM
To: [Owner]
Cc: [Admin person]
Subject: Way to save money?

I was doing some research into this, and it may be a way for our company
to cut some costs. Google has a more efficient and easy way to control
email and calendars than Microsoft exchange server. It removes the need
for servers, tapes, etc., for our email system and saves money as well.
Granted I don’t know what we pay for the server and IT support, but they
break down the costs on the website.

A great benefit: it allows employees to choose to use outlook or Gmail
as the client (ie: don’t have to train people who are accustomed to
outlook and don’t want to switch – not that Gmail is complicated). We
keep all the same email addresses and such, however it allows EVERYONE
to check their email and calendars from home, much easier than with the
exchange server, and Google syncs the calendar, contacts and emails with
outlook so everyone has the same information.
• Because chat is part of Google, quick answers can be received from
within the office, rather than having to write up an email, yet it is
stored as an email. Below is the link to information on the business
premium version of Google apps.
• 25 GB storage per person is also a huge factor. I believe that may be
larger than what we currently have with MS exchange.
• Email archiving of up to 10 years of retention
• Better spam controllers (we wouldn’t need our specialty spam
software)
• Fully secure web server
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html There are also
some videos from some large business who use Google rather than
Microsoft here.

This is the link to the cost savings calculator:
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/messaging_value.html I find
it really interesting the difference in costs. If we were able to save
over $100,000 in a 3-year time period by switching, maybe it’s worth
it?

Take a look and let me know what you think. I was trying to explain
Google Wave to you both last week when we were discussing marketing, and
how I think it is the start of what is to come in business
communication, and I think Google apps is also in this realm.
Personally, I know that I love Gmail and all the applications associated
with it, and I think I can speak for [admin person] in that she agrees
with me (we’ve both mentioned the “conversation” aspects of Gmail which
are incredibly useful at helping organize your inbox).

Thanks,
[An intern at one of my clients]



Here is my response to the customer:

Summary: Switching to Google e-mail will increase your e-mail costs by
40 percent and complicate your infrastructure by decentralizing it.

Truth in advertising:
I think that large enterprises that have entirely different network and
software licensing infrastructure from yours might be able to save some
money with this. They have huge costs for servers and software that are
dedicated to running their e-mail system and don’t have any other roles.
Instead, small businesses have less costly servers ($3500) that perform
multiple roles, one of which is e-mail.

Google’s figures assume that you’ll be buying two servers at $5,000 each
JUST to run your e-mail, that you’ll somehow be paying $3,193 for a ten
user license of Exchange, which is about twice the actual cost, assuming
a standalone Exchange server that is not part of Small Business Server.
The SBS edition combines the e-mail license as part of the overall
license, further reducing the cost.

There is also an assumption that your IT admin will spend a bunch of
hours specifically working on the e-mail system. That may be true for
large businesses, but I’ve hardly touched your e-mail system in years.

The figures on the Google website are inflated, designed to catch your
eye. They are not accurate figures for a company of your size and with
your e-mail usage.

Also, outsourcing the e-mail to Google will not eliminate the need to
have a server or backup system. You’ll still need that for your files,
centralized control of user accounts, antivirus control, VPN access,
accounting software, etc. So you’re only affecting one component –
email. But you’re not eliminating it, you’re moving it further from your
control. Also, someone in your company (or paid by your company) still
has to manage it whether it’s at Google or in your office. The software
licenses for it are tied in with your licenses for the other components
of the server. You’ve already paid those licenses.
Your actual IT costs:
Nearly all of the money you have spent maintaining your network has been
on things like printers, server OS and file backups, workstation issues,
firewall, switch, etc. These other components of your infrastructure
would still be needed to run your business and to access and work with
your Google Mail. The only money you have spent on e-mail was a result
of having more than one e-mail account on your computers, which was not
related to hosting your own e-mail.

Your IT costs through BFTech from 3/24/2009 through today have been
$3540. That’s just the labor. You’ve also purchased a server. Your total
costs are probably more like $7500 – but that included replacing some
equipment that was more than 5 years old. Looking through the
descriptions of those costs, I see about $350 of that being related to
e-mail – your home e-mail, NOT driftmier.com e-mail. You’re paying about
$250 per year for the Postini anti-spam service, and a percentage of
your antivirus cost is e-mail related. Those are the only ongoing costs
that are specifically tied to your e-mail. Let’s call it $500/year
combined.

When it is time to replace the Proliant server, which runs your files,
printers, user logons and e-mail, that might cost you $10k if I gouge
you mercilessly for labor costs and make you upgrade to SBS 2008– but
the portion of that cost which will be related to e-mail will be about
15% – so that’s $1500 you’ll be spending on maintaining your e-mail.
That happens about every 3-4 years, so that’s between $375 and $500 that
can be attributed to e-mail. Let’s say for sake of argument that you
replace your server every three years.

So how are you going to save $100,000 in three years when you’re only
spending about $2000 in three years on your e-mail?

You’ll save $2 per mailbox per month ($2 x 10 users x 12 months =
$250/yr) by not needing to have Postini. That means each month, you can
buy an extra pizza and a couple of beers with your savings. Oh, but wait
– you’re going to have to pay Google $3,302/year for the privilege of
hosting your e-mail with them. So much for the pizza and beer.

In fact, let’s look at that a little more closely. Right now you’re
spending about $2000/year in e-mail related costs. Google wants
$3302/year for 10 users.

Aren’t numbers great? We can play with them all day and make them say
different things.
Features:
Easy access from home/mobile – Right now, your users can check their
e-mail from home by just going to [OWA URL]. The logon process for that
is no more difficult than the logon process for Google. Their entire
mailbox is in there, not just their Inbox, calendar, and contacts. If
your users have a Windows Mobile smartphone, or an iPhone, or a Droid,
or a Palm smartphone, or a Samsung smartphone, or any number of other
mobile phones that support Microsoft ActiveSync, they can work with
their e-mail, calendar, contacts, and tasks right from their mobile
device. This support is just as widespread as the Google mail thing –
maybe more so at this point.

Chat - that looks nifty – but if it stores as an e-mail, why not send
an e-mail using a web browser, phone, or mail client? Microsoft used to
have an IM component built into Exchange. They stopped including it
because nobody was using it.

E-mail Conversations and organizing – Outlook has many different views
and ways to organize your e-mail, including a Conversation view. This is
not an Exchange vs. Google thing. It’s a feature of Outlook, and you can
use it no matter what e-mail system you are using.

Storage capacity – 25 GB per user is definitely more than Exchange
server supports at your current license level – but who needs that much?
Your mailbox, that you have been building up for more than ten years, is
6.5 GB in size. [Intern’s] is 1.2 GB. If we needed more capacity, we
could upgrade your Exchange licensing and expand to meet the need, and
still come in below Google’s pricing in the medium to long term.

E-mail archiving – also nifty, and if at some point in the future you
need it, we should evaluate the costs to implement it on your existing
server or migrate to a service like Google mail that includes it.

Integrated anti-spam – that’s a good feature. I like that. See the
comment above regarding pizza and beer.

Security – Has anyone hacked your Outlook Web Access server lately?
The bottom line:
You have to support a network infrastructure anyway, for reasons other
than e-mail. E-mail is a relatively small portion of your IT costs. You
are utilizing a very small percentage of what your Exchange server is
capable of. It can be made to do much more.
Google is “the new hotness” – but is your Exchange system “old and
busted”?
I don’t think so.



I also submitted this thread to some other consultants on an e-mail
distribution list, and here are their responses:

-=-=-

Ellis:

The number one reason I’ve found to recommend an internal e-mail system
over any hosted solution is how can a missing message be traced that the
business is critically dependent on? That is the kind of situation
where the ability for us to be able to dive into the message tracking
logs, filters and other connectivity systems to find out where the
connection failed, and this can provide value that outweighs the cost of
the entire e-mail system if the message is valuable enough.

-=-=-

Eugene:

By the way, I laughed when I saw the $100,000 in 3 years thing. When
has this customer ever spent $100,000 in 3 years on all their IT (let
alone the email portion, as you point out)? Most small to medium-small
business don’t spend that kind of money, so it’s patently impossible for
them to _save_ that kind of money. And since savings are always a
proper (obviously) fraction of spend that is well below unity (i.e. well
below 100%) – because the new vendor damn well wants a piece of the pie
to take to their own bank – they’d have to spend multiple times that –
so, multiple hundreds of thousands per 3 years. Doesn’t happen, as you
point out – you set them up with $3,500 budget servers, reasonable
compromise backups plans (i.e. no gold-plated tapes stored in
nobel-gas-filled earthquake-proof offsite vaults), and only as much
consulting as they need to make their email and OWA work in a normal
fashion, and your customer’s costs are quite reasonable.

Regarding Intern’s mention of Google Wave: it is not a real thing at
this time, and there’s no indication anytime soon that it will be.
Therefore it is a non-feature, with no importance to the client.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/18/google_wave_drowning/
“Google Wave isn’t even close to being ready yet for the average user”
(published 9 weeks ago)
-=-=-

Joe:

When it breaks, who do you call and what do you expect? Notice that
Wikipedia.com was offline today? At this point it’s nice to have a bit
of control. You know what you have, you don’t have to worry about a
failure outside of your control. If something breaks, you can walk
over, tap the person on the shoulder and ask what the issue is, and when
things will be back up. Who are you to Google? How important is your
business working to them?

Lets say you want to cut down on costs, what can you cut from Google?
You can have me come in less, do no upgrades, and for the most part
things should continue to run at a minimal cost.

I’ll also toss in the large file between users – where it has to be
uploaded to the server and then pulled down again (rather than staying
on the LAN). It’s not like the client gets to turn off a server by
doing this. All it’s doing is replacing part of a software package
that’s already owned and implemented, to let’s change, and this is how
many hours of billable work it is to change. Change like this is
expensive for no savings.

Easy math = My Hourly Rate x Hours to Migrate all existing data into
this new setup = more than you would save in 2-3 years time by
changing.

-=-=-

Patty:

Agreed on all counts. I don’t think g-mail tech support could be a
replacement for a consultant or on-site help desk when problems arise.
That being said, I also think it would probably be the consultant
dealing with that g-mail support and charging the client in turn for the
time spent dealing with them rather than just solving the problem
directly. Thanks to Microsoft SBS, the e-mail portion of IT expense is
small and would be extremely difficult for any outside vendor to compete
with from a cost or functionality standpoint.

-=-=-

Ken:

I think you and others have nailed it on a number of counts,
particularly with the point about flexible IT budgeting. Customers like
being able to get lean when they have to and then ramp up quickly when
they get busy.

-=-=-

Here’s a good account of what can go wrong with this type of service as
well:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article...ast-Cloudy-with-a-Chance-of-Indifference.aspx


--
aliuhz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm

http://forums.techarena.in
 

My Computer

R

Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]

#8
Yes the Microsoft partner is great if you get the Action Pack
(They added a name to the end of it now?)

http://partner.microsoft.com

BPOS is great for people who don't have technical skills and still want
exchange.
Russ

--
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Remote Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com


"aliuhz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:aliuhz.4b[email protected]

>
> Again, many thanks! I think this pretty much sums it up financially,
> and was educational for me as it helped me see things from a different
> perspective (as did this thread):
> http://blog.bruteforcetech.com/index.php/archives/498 (pasted below).
> ..seems like everyone is inflating prices to emphasize how bad their
> hosted services are needed. I like Microsoft's prices the best (Thanks
> Russ, I'll be in touch when I find a client to go the hosted route).
> Leythos- thanks for the recommendation on joining the MS partner
> program, when I have some spare $ I will definitely do so- looks like
> some pretty nice benefits there and the challenge of staying current is
> appealing.
>
>
>
>
> Exchange server vs. Google hosted
> Google Mail vs. Exchange Server
> April 6th, 2010 by Paul Sterley | Filed under Exchange Server, In the
> Exchange Box, LOB Software, Not in the Exchange Box. Not long ago, I
> received an e-mail from the owner of a business that I provide IT
> services to. It was forwarded from an intern at the company. Here is
> what it said:
>
> From: [Intern]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:06 PM
> To: [Owner]
> Cc: [Admin person]
> Subject: Way to save money?
>
> I was doing some research into this, and it may be a way for our company
> to cut some costs. Google has a more efficient and easy way to control
> email and calendars than Microsoft exchange server. It removes the need
> for servers, tapes, etc., for our email system and saves money as well.
> Granted I don't know what we pay for the server and IT support, but they
> break down the costs on the website.
>
> A great benefit: it allows employees to choose to use outlook or Gmail
> as the client (ie: don't have to train people who are accustomed to
> outlook and don't want to switch - not that Gmail is complicated). We
> keep all the same email addresses and such, however it allows EVERYONE
> to check their email and calendars from home, much easier than with the
> exchange server, and Google syncs the calendar, contacts and emails with
> outlook so everyone has the same information.
> . Because chat is part of Google, quick answers can be received from
> within the office, rather than having to write up an email, yet it is
> stored as an email. Below is the link to information on the business
> premium version of Google apps.
> . 25 GB storage per person is also a huge factor. I believe that may be
> larger than what we currently have with MS exchange.
> . Email archiving of up to 10 years of retention
> . Better spam controllers (we wouldn't need our specialty spam
> software)
> . Fully secure web server
> http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html There are also
> some videos from some large business who use Google rather than
> Microsoft here.
>
> This is the link to the cost savings calculator:
> http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/messaging_value.html I find
> it really interesting the difference in costs. If we were able to save
> over $100,000 in a 3-year time period by switching, maybe it's worth
> it?
>
> Take a look and let me know what you think. I was trying to explain
> Google Wave to you both last week when we were discussing marketing, and
> how I think it is the start of what is to come in business
> communication, and I think Google apps is also in this realm.
> Personally, I know that I love Gmail and all the applications associated
> with it, and I think I can speak for [admin person] in that she agrees
> with me (we've both mentioned the "conversation" aspects of Gmail which
> are incredibly useful at helping organize your inbox).
>
> Thanks,
> [An intern at one of my clients]
>
>
>
> Here is my response to the customer:
>
> Summary: Switching to Google e-mail will increase your e-mail costs by
> 40 percent and complicate your infrastructure by decentralizing it.
>
> Truth in advertising:
> I think that large enterprises that have entirely different network and
> software licensing infrastructure from yours might be able to save some
> money with this. They have huge costs for servers and software that are
> dedicated to running their e-mail system and don't have any other roles.
> Instead, small businesses have less costly servers ($3500) that perform
> multiple roles, one of which is e-mail.
>
> Google's figures assume that you'll be buying two servers at $5,000 each
> JUST to run your e-mail, that you'll somehow be paying $3,193 for a ten
> user license of Exchange, which is about twice the actual cost, assuming
> a standalone Exchange server that is not part of Small Business Server.
> The SBS edition combines the e-mail license as part of the overall
> license, further reducing the cost.
>
> There is also an assumption that your IT admin will spend a bunch of
> hours specifically working on the e-mail system. That may be true for
> large businesses, but I've hardly touched your e-mail system in years.
>
> The figures on the Google website are inflated, designed to catch your
> eye. They are not accurate figures for a company of your size and with
> your e-mail usage.
>
> Also, outsourcing the e-mail to Google will not eliminate the need to
> have a server or backup system. You'll still need that for your files,
> centralized control of user accounts, antivirus control, VPN access,
> accounting software, etc. So you're only affecting one component -
> email. But you're not eliminating it, you're moving it further from your
> control. Also, someone in your company (or paid by your company) still
> has to manage it whether it's at Google or in your office. The software
> licenses for it are tied in with your licenses for the other components
> of the server. You've already paid those licenses.
> Your actual IT costs:
> Nearly all of the money you have spent maintaining your network has been
> on things like printers, server OS and file backups, workstation issues,
> firewall, switch, etc. These other components of your infrastructure
> would still be needed to run your business and to access and work with
> your Google Mail. The only money you have spent on e-mail was a result
> of having more than one e-mail account on your computers, which was not
> related to hosting your own e-mail.
>
> Your IT costs through BFTech from 3/24/2009 through today have been
> $3540. That's just the labor. You've also purchased a server. Your total
> costs are probably more like $7500 - but that included replacing some
> equipment that was more than 5 years old. Looking through the
> descriptions of those costs, I see about $350 of that being related to
> e-mail - your home e-mail, NOT driftmier.com e-mail. You're paying about
> $250 per year for the Postini anti-spam service, and a percentage of
> your antivirus cost is e-mail related. Those are the only ongoing costs
> that are specifically tied to your e-mail. Let's call it $500/year
> combined.
>
> When it is time to replace the Proliant server, which runs your files,
> printers, user logons and e-mail, that might cost you $10k if I gouge
> you mercilessly for labor costs and make you upgrade to SBS 2008- but
> the portion of that cost which will be related to e-mail will be about
> 15% - so that's $1500 you'll be spending on maintaining your e-mail.
> That happens about every 3-4 years, so that's between $375 and $500 that
> can be attributed to e-mail. Let's say for sake of argument that you
> replace your server every three years.
>
> So how are you going to save $100,000 in three years when you're only
> spending about $2000 in three years on your e-mail?
>
> You'll save $2 per mailbox per month ($2 x 10 users x 12 months =
> $250/yr) by not needing to have Postini. That means each month, you can
> buy an extra pizza and a couple of beers with your savings. Oh, but wait
> - you're going to have to pay Google $3,302/year for the privilege of
> hosting your e-mail with them. So much for the pizza and beer.
>
> In fact, let's look at that a little more closely. Right now you're
> spending about $2000/year in e-mail related costs. Google wants
> $3302/year for 10 users.
>
> Aren't numbers great? We can play with them all day and make them say
> different things.
> Features:
> Easy access from home/mobile - Right now, your users can check their
> e-mail from home by just going to [OWA URL]. The logon process for that
> is no more difficult than the logon process for Google. Their entire
> mailbox is in there, not just their Inbox, calendar, and contacts. If
> your users have a Windows Mobile smartphone, or an iPhone, or a Droid,
> or a Palm smartphone, or a Samsung smartphone, or any number of other
> mobile phones that support Microsoft ActiveSync, they can work with
> their e-mail, calendar, contacts, and tasks right from their mobile
> device. This support is just as widespread as the Google mail thing -
> maybe more so at this point.
>
> Chat - that looks nifty - but if it stores as an e-mail, why not send
> an e-mail using a web browser, phone, or mail client? Microsoft used to
> have an IM component built into Exchange. They stopped including it
> because nobody was using it.
>
> E-mail Conversations and organizing - Outlook has many different views
> and ways to organize your e-mail, including a Conversation view. This is
> not an Exchange vs. Google thing. It's a feature of Outlook, and you can
> use it no matter what e-mail system you are using.
>
> Storage capacity - 25 GB per user is definitely more than Exchange
> server supports at your current license level - but who needs that much?
> Your mailbox, that you have been building up for more than ten years, is
> 6.5 GB in size. [Intern's] is 1.2 GB. If we needed more capacity, we
> could upgrade your Exchange licensing and expand to meet the need, and
> still come in below Google's pricing in the medium to long term.
>
> E-mail archiving - also nifty, and if at some point in the future you
> need it, we should evaluate the costs to implement it on your existing
> server or migrate to a service like Google mail that includes it.
>
> Integrated anti-spam - that's a good feature. I like that. See the
> comment above regarding pizza and beer.
>
> Security - Has anyone hacked your Outlook Web Access server lately?
> The bottom line:
> You have to support a network infrastructure anyway, for reasons other
> than e-mail. E-mail is a relatively small portion of your IT costs. You
> are utilizing a very small percentage of what your Exchange server is
> capable of. It can be made to do much more.
> Google is "the new hotness" - but is your Exchange system "old and
> busted"?
> I don't think so.
>
>
>
> I also submitted this thread to some other consultants on an e-mail
> distribution list, and here are their responses:
>
> -=-=-
>
> Ellis:
>
> The number one reason I've found to recommend an internal e-mail system
> over any hosted solution is how can a missing message be traced that the
> business is critically dependent on? That is the kind of situation
> where the ability for us to be able to dive into the message tracking
> logs, filters and other connectivity systems to find out where the
> connection failed, and this can provide value that outweighs the cost of
> the entire e-mail system if the message is valuable enough.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Eugene:
>
> By the way, I laughed when I saw the $100,000 in 3 years thing. When
> has this customer ever spent $100,000 in 3 years on all their IT (let
> alone the email portion, as you point out)? Most small to medium-small
> business don't spend that kind of money, so it's patently impossible for
> them to _save_ that kind of money. And since savings are always a
> proper (obviously) fraction of spend that is well below unity (i.e. well
> below 100%) - because the new vendor damn well wants a piece of the pie
> to take to their own bank - they'd have to spend multiple times that -
> so, multiple hundreds of thousands per 3 years. Doesn't happen, as you
> point out - you set them up with $3,500 budget servers, reasonable
> compromise backups plans (i.e. no gold-plated tapes stored in
> nobel-gas-filled earthquake-proof offsite vaults), and only as much
> consulting as they need to make their email and OWA work in a normal
> fashion, and your customer's costs are quite reasonable.
>
> Regarding Intern's mention of Google Wave: it is not a real thing at
> this time, and there's no indication anytime soon that it will be.
> Therefore it is a non-feature, with no importance to the client.
> See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/18/google_wave_drowning/ -
> "Google Wave isn't even close to being ready yet for the average user"
> (published 9 weeks ago)
> -=-=-
>
> Joe:
>
> When it breaks, who do you call and what do you expect? Notice that
> Wikipedia.com was offline today? At this point it's nice to have a bit
> of control. You know what you have, you don't have to worry about a
> failure outside of your control. If something breaks, you can walk
> over, tap the person on the shoulder and ask what the issue is, and when
> things will be back up. Who are you to Google? How important is your
> business working to them?
>
> Lets say you want to cut down on costs, what can you cut from Google?
> You can have me come in less, do no upgrades, and for the most part
> things should continue to run at a minimal cost.
>
> I'll also toss in the large file between users - where it has to be
> uploaded to the server and then pulled down again (rather than staying
> on the LAN). It's not like the client gets to turn off a server by
> doing this. All it's doing is replacing part of a software package
> that's already owned and implemented, to let's change, and this is how
> many hours of billable work it is to change. Change like this is
> expensive for no savings.
>
> Easy math = My Hourly Rate x Hours to Migrate all existing data into
> this new setup = more than you would save in 2-3 years time by
> changing.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Patty:
>
> Agreed on all counts. I don't think g-mail tech support could be a
> replacement for a consultant or on-site help desk when problems arise.
> That being said, I also think it would probably be the consultant
> dealing with that g-mail support and charging the client in turn for the
> time spent dealing with them rather than just solving the problem
> directly. Thanks to Microsoft SBS, the e-mail portion of IT expense is
> small and would be extremely difficult for any outside vendor to compete
> with from a cost or functionality standpoint.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Ken:
>
> I think you and others have nailed it on a number of counts,
> particularly with the point about flexible IT budgeting. Customers like
> being able to get lean when they have to and then ramp up quickly when
> they get busy.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Here's a good account of what can go wrong with this type of service as
> well:
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/article...ast-Cloudy-with-a-Chance-of-Indifference.aspx
>
>
> --
> aliuhz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
> View this thread:
> http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm
>
> http://forums.techarena.in
>
 

My Computer

S

Susan Bradley

#9
aliuhz wrote:

> Wow, thank you for the information. I thought those prices seemed off,
> and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
> either- that is just wrong!
>
> So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
> warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
> file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
> exchange.
> Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
> conflict with each other)?
>
> In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
> get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up? I'm
> thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN. I
> think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
> said above, how important the data is. It is however an higher initial
> cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).
> I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
> am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
> comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
> it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
> charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
> to find some help here in Southern California). Again, I appreciate
> your advice and opinion. I will post cost comparison once completed, if
> interested.
>
>
>
That Dell $1200 is rock bottom and IMHO needs to be beefed up.
 

My Computer