|
|
|
date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 15:04:33 +0200,
group: microsoft.public.exchange2000.applications
back
Re: Substitute for MS Outlook/Exchange functionality
"Miha" wrote:
>Since in Exchange 2007 CAL there is no Outlook license included (like in
>previous versions) I'm wondering if there is any other mail client (like
>Thunderbird) that supports Outlook/Exchange functionalities, so we don't
>need to by extra Outlook license (yes, we're using Open Office, and Yes we
>could use OWA in 2007 for desktop mail, but I would much like to find any
>free client that could do job like OutlookJ)
You still need CALs for the clients. You won't need the more expensive
"Enterprise" CAL, byt you'll need a license for each user.
You really should be talking to the people you buy your licenses from
for answers to licensing question. None of us have any idea how, or
from whom, you purchase CALs.
--
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@pinkroccade.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@getronics.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@pinkroccade.com
date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:06:50 -0400
author: Rich Matheisen [MVP]
Re: Substitute for MS Outlook/Exchange functionality
Yes I'm aware of that. We have CALs for clients (for MS Exchange 2007), but
since we're using OpenOffice clients don't have MS Outlook, so we need to
buy extra Outlook licences for users. This is besides Exchange CAL
additional cost for Outlook licence, since Microsoft is so great that has
excluded Outlook licence from MS Exchange 2007 CAL. Don't know why ????
My way of looking at this...If we don't use MS Outlook with Exchange (we're
using Outlook Express or Thunderbird) there is no need that we have MS
Exchange, so it will be best to move back to Linux mail server! If more
people will do that, maybe Microsoft will reconsider and include Outlook
back into CAL in the next version of Exchange.
Regards,
Miha
"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" je napisal v
sporocilo news:phl5e31g7mr939utr1bbcjm0kqcrash1h5@4ax.com ...
> "Miha" wrote:
>
>>Since in Exchange 2007 CAL there is no Outlook license included (like in
>>previous versions) I'm wondering if there is any other mail client (like
>>Thunderbird) that supports Outlook/Exchange functionalities, so we don't
>>need to by extra Outlook license (yes, we're using Open Office, and Yes we
>>could use OWA in 2007 for desktop mail, but I would much like to find any
>>free client that could do job like OutlookJ)
>
> You still need CALs for the clients. You won't need the more expensive
> "Enterprise" CAL, byt you'll need a license for each user.
>
> You really should be talking to the people you buy your licenses from
> for answers to licensing question. None of us have any idea how, or
> from whom, you purchase CALs.
>
> --
> Rich Matheisen
> MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
> MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
> Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@pinkroccade.com
> mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@getronics.com
> mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@pinkroccade.com
date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 22:00:56 +0200
author: Miha
Re: Substitute for MS Outlook/Exchange functionality
"Miha" wrote:
>Yes I'm aware of that. We have CALs for clients (for MS Exchange 2007), but
>since we're using OpenOffice clients don't have MS Outlook, so we need to
>buy extra Outlook licences for users. This is besides Exchange CAL
>additional cost for Outlook licence, since Microsoft is so great that has
>excluded Outlook licence from MS Exchange 2007 CAL. Don't know why ????
Because they make their money selling CALs, not server, licenses?
>My way of looking at this...If we don't use MS Outlook with Exchange (we're
>using Outlook Express or Thunderbird) there is no need that we have MS
>Exchange,
That's up to you. You don't /need/ Exchange if all you do is POP3 and
IMAP.
>so it will be best to move back to Linux mail server!
For you, probably true.
>If more
>people will do that, maybe Microsoft will reconsider and include Outlook
>back into CAL in the next version of Exchange.
Exchange CALs were never part of the server license (if they ever
were, it was a really long time ago).
CAL = Client Access License.
I'm not here to argue with you. I don't particularly like the MS
Exchange CAL. It's probably the biggest expense of running Exchange.
But it's MS software and their licenses. They aren't the only player
in email, but they scale pretty well compared to other enterprise
email systems.
If you're buying enough licenses, negotiate the price for the CAL. If
you use other MS software then licensing packages that make the
overall cost more acceptable.
Either way, I'm not an authority on licensing. You really should be
talking to the people you buy your licenses from.
--
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@pinkroccade.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@getronics.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@pinkroccade.com
date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:52:38 -0400
author: Rich Matheisen [MVP]
Re: Substitute for MS Outlook/Exchange functionality
Thanks for the info.
Regards,
Miha
"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" wrote in message
news:1om8e397553fg8edffrd9g0g5vre10lldb@4ax.com...
> "Miha" wrote:
>
>>Yes I'm aware of that. We have CALs for clients (for MS Exchange 2007),
>>but
>>since we're using OpenOffice clients don't have MS Outlook, so we need to
>>buy extra Outlook licences for users. This is besides Exchange CAL
>>additional cost for Outlook licence, since Microsoft is so great that has
>>excluded Outlook licence from MS Exchange 2007 CAL. Don't know why ????
>
> Because they make their money selling CALs, not server, licenses?
>
>>My way of looking at this...If we don't use MS Outlook with Exchange
>>(we're
>>using Outlook Express or Thunderbird) there is no need that we have MS
>>Exchange,
>
> That's up to you. You don't /need/ Exchange if all you do is POP3 and
> IMAP.
>
>>so it will be best to move back to Linux mail server!
>
> For you, probably true.
>
>>If more
>>people will do that, maybe Microsoft will reconsider and include Outlook
>>back into CAL in the next version of Exchange.
>
> Exchange CALs were never part of the server license (if they ever
> were, it was a really long time ago).
>
> CAL = Client Access License.
>
> I'm not here to argue with you. I don't particularly like the MS
> Exchange CAL. It's probably the biggest expense of running Exchange.
> But it's MS software and their licenses. They aren't the only player
> in email, but they scale pretty well compared to other enterprise
> email systems.
>
> If you're buying enough licenses, negotiate the price for the CAL. If
> you use other MS software then licensing packages that make the
> overall cost more acceptable.
>
> Either way, I'm not an authority on licensing. You really should be
> talking to the people you buy your licenses from.
>
> --
> Rich Matheisen
> MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
> MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
> Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@pinkroccade.com
> mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@getronics.com
> mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@pinkroccade.com
date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:49:05 +0200
author: Miha
|
|
