Prev: any way to remotely monitor the ese database being mounted or dismounted?
Next: Exchange 2003, Cache mode not working.
From: Mark Arnold [MVP] on 21 Apr 2010 12:52 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:26:58 +0100, "Andrew Story" <andrewDOTstoryATjameswalkerDOTbiz> wrote: >Ahh > >I'm planning on installing a 2003 exchange server tomorrow due to exchange >2000 going out of support shortly. > >It is the first 2003 server, can this not integrate durectly into the >organisation? > If you have never had a 2003 box inside that organization and it, as you say, is a 2007 org now then you must not put the 2003 box into it. That way dragons lie etc. etc.
From: Andrew Story on 22 Apr 2010 03:50 Thanks Mark, Put's me in a conundrum, but it's good to know. "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark(a)mvps.org> wrote in message news:89bus55lbbtnd064gkq19jb8532arlvl74(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:26:58 +0100, "Andrew Story" > <andrewDOTstoryATjameswalkerDOTbiz> wrote: > >>Ahh >> >>I'm planning on installing a 2003 exchange server tomorrow due to exchange >>2000 going out of support shortly. >> >>It is the first 2003 server, can this not integrate durectly into the >>organisation? >> > If you have never had a 2003 box inside that organization and it, as > you say, is a 2007 org now then you must not put the 2003 box into it. > That way dragons lie etc. etc.
From: Andrew Story on 22 Apr 2010 04:21 Hi mark 9again), Just ne more question. If the Exchange Org currently has a 2000 Ex server in the org and a 2007, can a 2003 Exchange server be implemented befiore the 2000 box is decommissioned? "Andrew Story" <andrewDOTstoryATjameswalkerDOTbiz> wrote in message news:ufRo3Bf4KHA.6132(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Thanks Mark, > > Put's me in a conundrum, but it's good to know. > > > > "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark(a)mvps.org> wrote in message > news:89bus55lbbtnd064gkq19jb8532arlvl74(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:26:58 +0100, "Andrew Story" >> <andrewDOTstoryATjameswalkerDOTbiz> wrote: >> >>>Ahh >>> >>>I'm planning on installing a 2003 exchange server tomorrow due to >>>exchange >>>2000 going out of support shortly. >>> >>>It is the first 2003 server, can this not integrate durectly into the >>>organisation? >>> >> If you have never had a 2003 box inside that organization and it, as >> you say, is a 2007 org now then you must not put the 2003 box into it. >> That way dragons lie etc. etc. > >
From: Mark Arnold [MVP] on 22 Apr 2010 08:42 On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:21:48 +0100, "Andrew Story" <andrewDOTstoryATjameswalkerDOTbiz> wrote: >Hi mark 9again), > >Just ne more question. > >If the Exchange Org currently has a 2000 Ex server in the org and a 2007, >can a 2003 Exchange server be implemented befiore the 2000 box is >decommissioned? No. What you needed to do was to forestprep and domainprep for 2003 before you prepared for 2007. People doing brand new forests for 2007 have been known to extend the schema for 2003 before doing the same for 2007 just in case they need to install a 2003 box. Some even installed a 2003 box to do PF managemenet! Now you have implemented 2007 you're done like dinner. It's all over for you.
From: Andrew Story on 22 Apr 2010 09:27
Thanks Mar, We're going to have a Virtual machine to run a DC/Exchange 2003 server in it's own forest for this application. "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark(a)mvps.org> wrote in message news:eug0t5pinjpmh3vj7778hje5llv2se25vk(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:21:48 +0100, "Andrew Story" > <andrewDOTstoryATjameswalkerDOTbiz> wrote: > >>Hi mark 9again), >> >>Just ne more question. >> >>If the Exchange Org currently has a 2000 Ex server in the org and a 2007, >>can a 2003 Exchange server be implemented befiore the 2000 box is >>decommissioned? > > No. > What you needed to do was to forestprep and domainprep for 2003 before > you prepared for 2007. People doing brand new forests for 2007 have > been known to extend the schema for 2003 before doing the same for > 2007 just in case they need to install a 2003 box. Some even installed > a 2003 box to do PF managemenet! > Now you have implemented 2007 you're done like dinner. It's all over > for you. |