Microsoft Opens Up the PST Format

@Delmont Sync takes places continuously and the client polls with the server. It does sync the entire mailbox each time a user opens Outlook. That would be ridiculous. Only when a new computer is configured with the user's mailbox, would it sync the entire box and sync takes place in the background and is goverened. New items show up first and a user may continue to work. The "My Site" feature in OL/E2K7/10 is designed to connect users with Sharepoint sites vice pulic folders, which as Waethorn correctly states, have been deprecated in E2K2 and higher. Regardless, public folders and the sync thereof is still there and used the same way if the EO also has older E2K3 servers online and coexisting with E2K7 servers. BUT... be careful, because those saying that Sharepoint is the answer to large mailboxes need to know that documents are actually copied from the Exchange public folder to the SharePoint document library, storage requirements on the server are doubled as the document is now stored both in Exchange and Share-Point. Consider using quotas to control the size of the SharePoint site. Otherwise, you might find yourself frequently cleaning up the public folders. So if you do enabled this, understand that storage requirements will go up.

"Only if you choose the no password option. You can certainly protect PST files with encryption." Sure you can add a password, the default is no password on a PST. 15GB mailboxes are insane. Once you go past 2-3gig Outlook will open slowly. http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx http://smtp25.blogspot.com/2008/12/recommended-mailbox-size-and-exchange... With Exchange 2003 the MS best practice was to spawn a new DB once a DB reached 40GB. With 2007 the MS best practice is DB's with a max between 50-100GB. With those best practices you are not going to stuff a lot of 15GB mailboxes in those databases.

@rr0de74, Pfft.. you create multiple storage groups and place three stores only (saving room for one more to use as a dial tone DB if you ever need it). You distribute users across the storage groups and stores - taking care to never place all users from any single department in the same store and heavy users spread out equally. In simple words, you plan and you leverage what the platform can do. This way you can keep any simgle store smaller. I've not seen or heard any user complain about OL being slow to open - regardless of their mailbox size. It syncs in the background and opens smartly. Yes, one should, and we do, manage and educate users and yes, we do train them on how to remove attachments. However, more than anything, we let them work - e.g., we work for them - not the other way around. So the focus is on service delivery and providing users the resources they need. Many executives "live" in Outlook. That's fine with us - we're here to make sure they have what they need and we'll welcome the new documentation and more opportunities to extend E2K/OL to apps and vice versa.

"I've not seen or heard any user complain about OL being slow to open - regardless of their mailbox size. It syncs in the background and opens smartly." You lack enough real world experience then. Its a well known fact that a large mailbox will slow Outlook. A quick Google search.... http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/905803 http://www.petri.co.il/outlook_2007_performance_problems.htm There are many more if you want me to link them?

GoodThings, "Here's my real problem with Apple and Macs... they sell through negative advertising. They attack the competition and claim they're better... but they never bother to say why." You're missing a key part. What's often done in Apple ads is they attack the competition for things equally or more true about them but by saying it only about the competition the viewer assumes incorrectly that the problem isn't true about Apple even though it is. Apple didn't (quite) lie since they never actually said they were better. You see the same tactic in political attack ads especially when the party involved has a very, very vocal core. If they say the system is broken (and even admit it's broken with both parties) then expectations are lowered. In computers it leads to "if it isn't working it must be my fault because this is the easy computer" and "well, if I can't do it here, I'd be even worse with " even when that's wildly untrue. In politics it leads to low voter turnout and low interest in what's being done which provides more power to a loyal cadre that vote no matter what and nobody caring about scandals from corrupt politicians who then can use that corruption to keep the core bribed and happy.

lketchum " However, more than anything, we let them work - e.g., we work for them - not the other way around. So the focus is on service delivery and providing users the resources they need." And that is the key difference between good and bad IT groups. And getting the mindset of "we'll give the users the minimum data and permissions and flexibility that they can force us to." is why so many of us in the mid 1970s started the personal computer revolution. For more see, Ted Nelson's "Computer Lib/Dream Machines" or Paul Freiberger and Michael Swaine's "Fire in the Valley" or John Markoff's "What the Dormouse Said"