We've been running Exchange 5.5 SP4 for years (obviously), but I just 
recently installed OWA, and I have a question about accessing public 
folders in it.

The heaviest-used folder is made up of task items, and in outlook (all 
versions from 97 to 2003), all my users can go in and edit information 
in the big entry field on the task pane.  In OWA, they can see this 
information, but I can't figure out how to enable them to edit or add to 
it.  Can that be done?  If not, OWA's public folders are pretty much 
useless to us...


-- 
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the 
newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber  wrote:
> We've been running Exchange 5.5 SP4 for years (obviously), but I just
> recently installed OWA, and I have a question about accessing public
> folders in it.
>
> The heaviest-used folder is made up of task items, and in outlook (all
> versions from 97 to 2003), all my users can go in and edit information
> in the big entry field on the task pane.  In OWA, they can see this
> information, but I can't figure out how to enable them to edit or add
> to it.  Can that be done?  If not, OWA's public folders are pretty
> much useless to us...

I don't believe this is possible in 5.5. OWA for that version of Exchange 
was pretty limited even beyond the public folders. I'm sure you're aware of 
the other disadvantages of running a no-longer-supported version....you need 
to upgrade/migrate. There have been a lot of improvements.

In article , 
lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
> David Kerber  wrote:
> > We've been running Exchange 5.5 SP4 for years (obviously), but I just
> > recently installed OWA, and I have a question about accessing public
> > folders in it.
> >
> > The heaviest-used folder is made up of task items, and in outlook (all
> > versions from 97 to 2003), all my users can go in and edit information
> > in the big entry field on the task pane.  In OWA, they can see this
> > information, but I can't figure out how to enable them to edit or add
> > to it.  Can that be done?  If not, OWA's public folders are pretty
> > much useless to us...
> 
> I don't believe this is possible in 5.5. OWA for that version of Exchange 
> was pretty limited even beyond the public folders. I'm sure you're aware of 
> the other disadvantages of running a no-longer-supported version....you need 
> to upgrade/migrate. There have been a lot of improvements. 

Is this possible in newer versions of Exchange/OWA?  That would be a big 
argument in favor of spending big bucks on an upgrade.  And Exchange + 
64-bit HW and OS is big bucks for a 20-person company like ours...

-- 
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the 
newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber  wrote:
> In article ,
> lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
>> David Kerber  wrote:
>>> We've been running Exchange 5.5 SP4 for years (obviously), but I
>>> just recently installed OWA, and I have a question about accessing
>>> public folders in it.
>>>
>>> The heaviest-used folder is made up of task items, and in outlook
>>> (all versions from 97 to 2003), all my users can go in and edit
>>> information in the big entry field on the task pane.  In OWA, they
>>> can see this information, but I can't figure out how to enable them
>>> to edit or add to it.  Can that be done?  If not, OWA's public
>>> folders are pretty much useless to us...
>>
>> I don't believe this is possible in 5.5. OWA for that version of
>> Exchange was pretty limited even beyond the public folders. I'm sure
>> you're aware of the other disadvantages of running a
>> no-longer-supported version....you need to upgrade/migrate. There
>> have been a lot of improvements.
>
> Is this possible in newer versions of Exchange/OWA?  That would be a
> big argument in favor of spending big bucks on an upgrade.  And
> Exchange + 64-bit HW and OS is big bucks for a 20-person company like
> ours...

OWA for Exchange 2003 allows you to use Tasks very cleanly, and you could 
look into SBS2003 for your company. Try posting in 
microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs for more info. The next version of SBS 
(which will have E2007) is still quite a ways away from release, AFAIK. But 
buy 64-bit hardware just in case. SBS will also give you a ton of other good 
new features, such as remote access, etc.

In article <#Y6ulhfWIHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, 
lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
> David Kerber  wrote:
> > In article ,
> > lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
> >> David Kerber  wrote:
> >>> We've been running Exchange 5.5 SP4 for years (obviously), but I
> >>> just recently installed OWA, and I have a question about accessing
> >>> public folders in it.
> >>>
> >>> The heaviest-used folder is made up of task items, and in outlook
> >>> (all versions from 97 to 2003), all my users can go in and edit
> >>> information in the big entry field on the task pane.  In OWA, they
> >>> can see this information, but I can't figure out how to enable them
> >>> to edit or add to it.  Can that be done?  If not, OWA's public
> >>> folders are pretty much useless to us...
> >>
> >> I don't believe this is possible in 5.5. OWA for that version of
> >> Exchange was pretty limited even beyond the public folders. I'm sure
> >> you're aware of the other disadvantages of running a
> >> no-longer-supported version....you need to upgrade/migrate. There
> >> have been a lot of improvements.
> >
> > Is this possible in newer versions of Exchange/OWA?  That would be a
> > big argument in favor of spending big bucks on an upgrade.  And
> > Exchange + 64-bit HW and OS is big bucks for a 20-person company like
> > ours...
> 
> OWA for Exchange 2003 allows you to use Tasks very cleanly, and you could 
> look into SBS2003 for your company. Try posting in 
> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs for more info. The next version of SBS 
> (which will have E2007) is still quite a ways away from release, AFAIK. But 
> buy 64-bit hardware just in case. SBS will also give you a ton of other good 
> new features, such as remote access, etc.

Thanks for the info.  Do you know if standalone E2007 also allow editing 
tasks through OWA?  

I've looked into SBS before, and from what I've read, we've pretty much 
already outgrown it.  We already have a Win2K AD DC, and 4 other member 
servers on the network of various types (remote access, database, web, 
app, etc).


-- 
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the 
newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber  wrote:
> In article <#Y6ulhfWIHA.3556@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
>> David Kerber  wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
>>>> David Kerber  wrote:
>>>>> We've been running Exchange 5.5 SP4 for years (obviously), but I
>>>>> just recently installed OWA, and I have a question about accessing
>>>>> public folders in it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The heaviest-used folder is made up of task items, and in outlook
>>>>> (all versions from 97 to 2003), all my users can go in and edit
>>>>> information in the big entry field on the task pane.  In OWA, they
>>>>> can see this information, but I can't figure out how to enable
>>>>> them to edit or add to it.  Can that be done?  If not, OWA's
>>>>> public folders are pretty much useless to us...
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe this is possible in 5.5. OWA for that version of
>>>> Exchange was pretty limited even beyond the public folders. I'm
>>>> sure you're aware of the other disadvantages of running a
>>>> no-longer-supported version....you need to upgrade/migrate. There
>>>> have been a lot of improvements.
>>>
>>> Is this possible in newer versions of Exchange/OWA?  That would be a
>>> big argument in favor of spending big bucks on an upgrade.  And
>>> Exchange + 64-bit HW and OS is big bucks for a 20-person company
>>> like ours...
>>
>> OWA for Exchange 2003 allows you to use Tasks very cleanly, and you
>> could look into SBS2003 for your company. Try posting in
>> microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs for more info. The next version
>> of SBS (which will have E2007) is still quite a ways away from
>> release, AFAIK. But buy 64-bit hardware just in case. SBS will also
>> give you a ton of other good new features, such as remote access,
>> etc.
>
> Thanks for the info.  Do you know if standalone E2007 also allow
> editing tasks through OWA?

Sure, I think it does.
>
> I've looked into SBS before, and from what I've read, we've pretty
> much already outgrown it.  We already have a Win2K AD DC, and 4 other
> member servers on the network of various types (remote access,
> database, web, app, etc).

That doesn't preclude SBS. You can have additional servers (member or DC) in 
an SBS domain - it just has to hold all the FSMO roles. Migration can be a 
bit of a pain but it might work for you if you don't feel like investing in 
64-bit hardware, W2003 x64, and Exchange. But you'd best do something soon - 
you really can't keep running 5x!

In article , 
lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
> 
> > Thanks for the info.  Do you know if standalone E2007 also allow
> > editing tasks through OWA?
> 
> Sure, I think it does.
> >
> > I've looked into SBS before, and from what I've read, we've pretty
> > much already outgrown it.  We already have a Win2K AD DC, and 4 other
> > member servers on the network of various types (remote access,
> > database, web, app, etc).
> 
> That doesn't preclude SBS. You can have additional servers (member or DC) in 
> an SBS domain - it just has to hold all the FSMO roles. Migration can be a 
> bit of a pain but it might work for you if you don't feel like investing in 
> 64-bit hardware, W2003 x64, and Exchange. But you'd best do something soon - 
> you really can't keep running 5x!

Why not???  It works fine, and always did everything we needed until we 
ran into thus OWA public folders issue.  

I just wish MS had a version of exchange that was designed for smaller 
businesses (<50 users or so), that would run on a 32-bit OS and was less 
expensive...

-- 
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the 
newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber  wrote:
> In article ,
> lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
>>
>>> Thanks for the info.  Do you know if standalone E2007 also allow
>>> editing tasks through OWA?
>>
>> Sure, I think it does.
>>>
>>> I've looked into SBS before, and from what I've read, we've pretty
>>> much already outgrown it.  We already have a Win2K AD DC, and 4
>>> other member servers on the network of various types (remote access,
>>> database, web, app, etc).
>>
>> That doesn't preclude SBS. You can have additional servers (member
>> or DC) in an SBS domain - it just has to hold all the FSMO roles.
>> Migration can be a bit of a pain but it might work for you if you
>> don't feel like investing in 64-bit hardware, W2003 x64, and
>> Exchange. But you'd best do something soon - you really can't keep
>> running 5x!
>
> Why not???  It works fine, and always did everything we needed until
> we ran into thus OWA public folders issue.
>
> I just wish MS had a version of exchange that was designed for smaller
> businesses (<50 users or so), that would run on a 32-bit OS and was
> less expensive...

Less expensive than what? Exchange 2003 Standard works just fine for plenty 
of offices of your size.

In article , 
lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
> David Kerber  wrote:
> > In article ,
> > lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
> >>
> >>> Thanks for the info.  Do you know if standalone E2007 also allow
> >>> editing tasks through OWA?
> >>
> >> Sure, I think it does.
> >>>
> >>> I've looked into SBS before, and from what I've read, we've pretty
> >>> much already outgrown it.  We already have a Win2K AD DC, and 4
> >>> other member servers on the network of various types (remote access,
> >>> database, web, app, etc).
> >>
> >> That doesn't preclude SBS. You can have additional servers (member
> >> or DC) in an SBS domain - it just has to hold all the FSMO roles.
> >> Migration can be a bit of a pain but it might work for you if you
> >> don't feel like investing in 64-bit hardware, W2003 x64, and
> >> Exchange. But you'd best do something soon - you really can't keep
> >> running 5x!
> >
> > Why not???  It works fine, and always did everything we needed until
> > we ran into thus OWA public folders issue.
> >
> > I just wish MS had a version of exchange that was designed for smaller
> > businesses (<50 users or so), that would run on a 32-bit OS and was
> > less expensive...
> 
> Less expensive than what? Exchange 2003 Standard works just fine for plenty 
> of offices of your size.

Less expensive than Exch 2007, such as a user-limited version that is 
only allowed to have up to, say, 50 users.  Can I still buy Exch 2003?  
I haven't had much luck locating it (though I haven't looked real hard 
yet)...


-- 
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the 
newsgroups if possible).

David Kerber  wrote:
> In article ,
> lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
>> David Kerber  wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com says...
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the info.  Do you know if standalone E2007 also allow
>>>>> editing tasks through OWA?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I think it does.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've looked into SBS before, and from what I've read, we've pretty
>>>>> much already outgrown it.  We already have a Win2K AD DC, and 4
>>>>> other member servers on the network of various types (remote
>>>>> access, database, web, app, etc).
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't preclude SBS. You can have additional servers (member
>>>> or DC) in an SBS domain - it just has to hold all the FSMO roles.
>>>> Migration can be a bit of a pain but it might work for you if you
>>>> don't feel like investing in 64-bit hardware, W2003 x64, and
>>>> Exchange. But you'd best do something soon - you really can't keep
>>>> running 5x!
>>>
>>> Why not???  It works fine, and always did everything we needed until
>>> we ran into thus OWA public folders issue.
>>>
>>> I just wish MS had a version of exchange that was designed for
>>> smaller businesses (<50 users or so), that would run on a 32-bit OS
>>> and was less expensive...
>>
>> Less expensive than what? Exchange 2003 Standard works just fine for
>> plenty of offices of your size.
>
> Less expensive than Exch 2007, such as a user-limited version that is
> only allowed to have up to, say, 50 users.  Can I still buy Exch 2003?
> I haven't had much luck locating it (though I haven't looked real hard
> yet)...

Check out ebay. :)