Migrate or Upgrade Your Messaging Platform?
Category IBM/Lotus
GCN has provided the latest review for IBM/Lotus Domino 7, and an "A" grade is awarded. Ed Brill has blogged on it, but I think the GCN review touches on some larger issues, especially in contrast with competitive offerings like Microsoft's Exchange. Here are the key quotes:
"Administration" is a topic that doesn't get picked enough, when messaging platforms are compared. When I train administrators from an Exchange or Groupwise background, it is always interesting to openly address their concerns, and then explore and unfold Domino's abilities.
One of the most fascinating features of Domino has always been its console interface--after a few days of working with Domino, any administrator from a different platform can see the value of Domino's transparency. The contrast between hunting through log files versus interacting with a live console gives Domino a considerable advantage. Then there is DDM, which could take up an entire day to present.
Ranked above all the cool Domino administration features, is one that I find unique to Domino: the ability to upgrade to the latest revision with a minimum of disruption. Now, I am being very careful as I choose my words--I am not saying that upgrading to newer versions of Domino comes without trials. I am saying that Domino upgrades are significantly easier than any other corporate collaboration platform.
Even the vendors select language that suggests the level of hardship for a version upgrade. With IBM/Lotus, moving to the latest release is an "upgrade," for Microsoft their transition is marked as a "migration." EWeek has written up the "Exchange 12 Migration" which discusses some of the downsides to moving to Exchange 12,
Messaging News has also published their March/April '06 edition with an article concerning the complications of "migrating" from Exchange 2003 to 12 (Microsoft has now marked the release version as "2007"). Pretty much everyone uses "migration" to describe a version update to Exchange.
If you check out Microsoft's TechNet, you can find a section on upgrading Microsoft Exchange, with the headline for their "Solution Accelerator for Exchange Consolidation and Migration." So, it's not just trade journalists and bloggers who note the difficulty of updating Exchange installations.
Actually, there is an entire industry devoted to Exchange migrations. There are books, consulting companies which specialize on Exchange migrations, and Microsoft even has courses on migrating to the latest Exchange. Moving an Exchange platform from one version to the next is really tough.
It's different in the IBM/Lotus world. I've done production server upgrades from ND6 to Domino7 in under half an hour (not recommended). IBM does provide comprehensive documentation for upgrading with RedBooks and product documentation--but there are no courses and no published books on migrations.
So, if everyone seems to recognize that Microsoft upgrades are expensive and challenging, then how come those numbers never appear in the analyst worksheets? Why is it that Exchange 5.5 still exists at a large number of companies?
I mean, what would you rather do when it is time to move to the next version of whatever messaging platform you are using? Migrate or upgrade?
GCN has provided the latest review for IBM/Lotus Domino 7, and an "A" grade is awarded. Ed Brill has blogged on it, but I think the GCN review touches on some larger issues, especially in contrast with competitive offerings like Microsoft's Exchange. Here are the key quotes:
With IBM’s Lotus Notes client on the front end and a Domino server on the back, agencies can have a robust enterprise collaboration platform that handles most office tasks—despite what Microsoft says.
Overall, messaging is a better business tool in Notes 7. For example, the suite’s ability to save entire instant messaging sessions as an e-mail file would be helpful for storage and later reference (as well as compliance with records management mandates).
. . . we found that the new management features in Domino server made the software easier to administer than Exchange 2003, especially if you have multiple servers.
"Administration" is a topic that doesn't get picked enough, when messaging platforms are compared. When I train administrators from an Exchange or Groupwise background, it is always interesting to openly address their concerns, and then explore and unfold Domino's abilities.
One of the most fascinating features of Domino has always been its console interface--after a few days of working with Domino, any administrator from a different platform can see the value of Domino's transparency. The contrast between hunting through log files versus interacting with a live console gives Domino a considerable advantage. Then there is DDM, which could take up an entire day to present.
Ranked above all the cool Domino administration features, is one that I find unique to Domino: the ability to upgrade to the latest revision with a minimum of disruption. Now, I am being very careful as I choose my words--I am not saying that upgrading to newer versions of Domino comes without trials. I am saying that Domino upgrades are significantly easier than any other corporate collaboration platform.
Even the vendors select language that suggests the level of hardship for a version upgrade. With IBM/Lotus, moving to the latest release is an "upgrade," for Microsoft their transition is marked as a "migration." EWeek has written up the "Exchange 12 Migration" which discusses some of the downsides to moving to Exchange 12,
Also on the negative side are the answers the Exchange team are giving to questions about how customers will have to deploy all of this new technology. One of the things Exchange 2003 administrators most want to know is how they take their front- and back-end Exchange architecture and move this over to Exchange 12.
They also want to know what the co-existence strategy is with Exchange 12 and Exchange 2003, and exactly what new skills they will have to learn. Some, while pleased they have the new Monad scripting shell to leverage, still want to know what it will cost them to get up to speed on that.
Messaging News has also published their March/April '06 edition with an article concerning the complications of "migrating" from Exchange 2003 to 12 (Microsoft has now marked the release version as "2007"). Pretty much everyone uses "migration" to describe a version update to Exchange.
If you check out Microsoft's TechNet, you can find a section on upgrading Microsoft Exchange, with the headline for their "Solution Accelerator for Exchange Consolidation and Migration." So, it's not just trade journalists and bloggers who note the difficulty of updating Exchange installations.
Actually, there is an entire industry devoted to Exchange migrations. There are books, consulting companies which specialize on Exchange migrations, and Microsoft even has courses on migrating to the latest Exchange. Moving an Exchange platform from one version to the next is really tough. It's different in the IBM/Lotus world. I've done production server upgrades from ND6 to Domino7 in under half an hour (not recommended). IBM does provide comprehensive documentation for upgrading with RedBooks and product documentation--but there are no courses and no published books on migrations.
So, if everyone seems to recognize that Microsoft upgrades are expensive and challenging, then how come those numbers never appear in the analyst worksheets? Why is it that Exchange 5.5 still exists at a large number of companies?
I mean, what would you rather do when it is time to move to the next version of whatever messaging platform you are using? Migrate or upgrade?
- 
