I'm unimpressed with the management interface in the new version of Exchange. Things that could be done very simply in Exchange 2003 now require that you not make any typos in the arcane command-line interface that you're required to use with 2007. The new console looks like it was made for a Linux distro -- very watered down functionality and horrible discoverability. I guess they hired a BSD/Linux guy to create the new Exchange management interface. It often takes me three or four times longer to do these "one off" configuration settings using the command line because I left off a ":" or a "." or a "," or a ">" or put a space in the wrong place. For the reduced level of functionality compared to Exchange 2003, things I tried to do right after getting the basic configuration done on a single-server config (for the test lab): 1. Configure the POP3 service, including binding a certificate to the POP3 listener and configuring the authentication settings 2. Configure the IMPA4 service, including binding a certificate to the IMAP4 listener and configuring the authentication settings 3. Configure something that would accept incoming SMTPS connections, configure the user authentication settings, and bind a certificate to the listener There's no way to do any of these things in the UI, and there's no reason why they should have been removed. Overall, the UI seems amaturish and almost like it was a "second thought" like "oh, I guess we need a UI because if everyone wanted to use the CLI, they would just go to Linux or BSD and not pay through the nose for Exchange" It appears that the new Exchange management console has definitly not been configured using the "Microsoft Way" of easy discoverability and high functionality. Seems more like the Linux guy's approach to UI's "well, I guess we should have something for people to look at, so we can take screen shots to interest people in the application!" Dr. Tom Shinder ISA Firewall MVP

Tom, thanks for you feedback. Our goal for the GUI was to make is as accessible as possible for the majority of scenarios our customers will encounter. There are things left out of the GUI as they are considered advanced scenarios, and other things we would have liked to get to but we just didn't have time to build GUI for (E2007 has a lot of new IW, security, UM, storage features, so we needed to provide features for that as well---so its not an apples to apples comparison with E2003). But the good news is that does not mean that we won't see any more GUI after RTM. Also, I fully understand your frustration with arcane cmdline syntax. I hate it myself, and I can assure you noone here loves arcane syntax or appreciates it. We have worked really hard at making things like getting mailboxes, setting quotas, even adding/removing databases as easy as possible in the shell. That being said, sometimes things do slip by as they are not the most common scenarios and some things are harder than they should be. That is why we have betas and value your experience---can you please articulate what steps you took in the CLI to configure POP/IMAP (maybe you can record what you did using start-transcript cmd or cut-and-paste from the shell) and we will take that as concrete and actionable feedback. Last thing, what we've seen (in actual customer deployments and tests) that there is an initial 'hump' in learning the cmdline, but once you're past that, it really speeds things up. Thanks again! ~vivek BTW: One minor comment on the 'amateurish' GUI comment: GUI look/feel is highly subjective, that is why we spend tons of time building mock-ups, prototypes and have team of dedicated GUI designers working on the product. These folks bring actual Exchange Admins in and gauge effectiveness using conceptual/prototype GUIs. Needless to say, the final product has had a lot of time and research put into it. :)

Hi Tom,PowerShell/Monad takes a little getting used to but it's great once you get past the initial mental challenge. :)Discoverability is easy and some of the relevant commands are listed in the splash screen for Exchange Management Shell. Another useful one, not explicitly mentioned there, is get-command with wildcards.For example ...Tryget-command *pop*to find the relevant POP3 cmdlet andget-command *imap*to find the relevant IMAP cmdlet for your purposes.Also if you open an additional Exchange Command Shell window and runhelp set-popsettingsand, in yet another window, runhelp imap-settingsit makes it easier to get up to speed with the cmdlets relevant to your task if they are new to you.Stick with PowerShell and you'll come to appreciate its strengths. It's good stuff. :)Dr Andrew WattMVP SQL Server

Hi Andrew, That's the point -- I don't want to make learning Exchange 2007 an avocation, working through unintuitive and arcane command line syntax, dealing with typos, trying to figure out what went wrong because it's very difficult to determine how to do things right. I think the CLI is a great option for full-time Exchange admins, but for those of us that spend maybe 10% of our time with Exchange, but would like to get the most out of it, why do I need to waste my time on a Unix experience when I paid good money for a MS product, which is supposed to be easier to use, more intuitive and easily discoverable with a user interface that doesn't require me to pull out my "Berlitz for Exchange" book to learn a new foreign language. No matter you package it, all this stuff about the CLI regarding "try it, you'll like it" are just so many ways of putting earrings and lipstick on a pig. But the solution is easy: bring the Exchange 2003 console functionality to the Exchange 2007 console. Leave the CLI in there for the full time Exchange admins, but for those of us who need to manage Windows, XP, ISA, SharePoint Portal Server, SQL, RMS, and a many of products, it's nice not to have to memorize the arcana of each product's CLI syntax. Talk about what nightmare world that would be! Thomas W Shinder, M.D.www.isaserver.orgMVP ISA Firewalls

Hi Vivek, Thanks for listening to this. I know that developers like to drive the design of the products, but the problem is that they come from a developer's perspective. The devs are naturals with the command line and live and die by typing out complex and convoluted commands and code. That's their job, that's what they like to do, and that's what they're good at. But a lot of Exchange customers aren't full time programmers or even full time Exchange admins. However, they still want to get the most out of Exchange and historically you could do this via the Exchange 5.5, 2000, and 2007 consoles. You could discover how to do what you needed to do by working through the console, maybe review the Help file, and if you're an experienced MS server product admin, you could get your work done and done rather well. The CLI is a step backwards for these people who aren't full-time Exchange admins. These part-timers still want to work with Exchange, but don't want to make it a vocation to learn the intricacies of the CLI -- all it does it lead to frustration and disallusionment among the customer base. I know that I'm not the only one who has this concern. I've talked to other people who aren't really enthused by becoming "DOS for Exchange" admins. They really liked the Exchange 2000/2003 consoles, where good with them, and are actually afraid of Exchange 2007 and will delay deployment if at all possible if they're forced to become CLI admins, a la Linux (and they didn't want to use Linux because they benefited from the excellent work MS has done in the past with their UIs). I hope that there is an effort to get at least all protocol functionality into the Exchange console. There's should be no reason to become atavistic and fall back to the CLI for the POP3 and IMAP4 services. In fact, the entire functionality of the SMTP services should be exposed in the console too. It was a simple affair to work with these services in Exchange 2003 with a simple right click and then click Properties, why are the obfuscated in Exchange 2007? By amaturish, I mean that the designers of the GUI did really think about how all types of Exchange admins works with the product. They might have worked with a collection of full-time Exchange admins, but ignored the requirements of part timers. Or maybe they worked with Exchange admins who work with 100+ server deployments, but didn't consider the needs and requirements of those of use to manage 1-4 Exchange servers per location. RE: your question on how to got the POP3 and IMAP4 services to work and how did I bind a certificate to the SMTP listener, the answer is I never did. I didn't have a clue on how to figure these things out and if you check the help file you see tables containing dozens of possible commands to use with these services. Why should I wade through those tables when it used to be a simple Right Click -> Properites effort with the Exchange 2003 console? I really hope that the UI gets beefed up, as I really want to like the product, but even more, it really concerns me that maybe MS has given up at making products easy to use and given in to an internal "Unix envy"

Firstly I need to agree with Tom on all of his points. Microsoft always seems to forget us little guys who only have one exchange server and also manage AD, SMS, Various Phone systems, etc. I've always been able to change every necessary setting via the GUI previously and now I need to go back and learn all of this new command line stuff that I thought had been dumped in the move from dos to full 32 bit nt4! Take a look at other companies like Cisco, they have kept their IOS interface but have in the past few years been adding gobs of GUI in response to the many complaints from smaller businesses and their new GUIs are pretty nice and very functional. Just the other day I was in interview and E2k7 came up, when I mentioned that the exchange admin functions for users was no longer in ADUC I got these draw dropping looks of disgust from the other two people in the room. I can understand adding the scripts and command line stuff as a feature but taking away the gui while doing it is a no win situation for me

I'm still looking for the particular example so we can make it better at the CLI. Please, if you run into particular difficulties, I would really appreciate specifics (I'm fine with the thread turning into the ye olde 'blah cmdline' thread, but I *want to fix it* too :) Also, please do not try to assume that we are 'thinking like developers'. In fact I'm at a conference right now where *every single person* in the hands on lab has given positive feedback on what we're doing in Exchange. And this is on the order of 40-50 people in one lab. And we got this same feedback (that finally we're thinking like admins) from our early adopters.But these kind of arguments aren't new---you can imagine there are detractors as soon as MS adopts any new technology, so we've worked hard to collect concrete feedback from Admins to make sure we're not just making this stuff up. I know I can't just make you believe that, but for what its worth. Mloradites is right, there's an inintial ramp up cost, we're trying to make better, but it will always annoy some people. And no-where, absolutely nowhere do we suggest or advertise that we're "getting rid of the GUI". So please a) don't assume that and b) don't spread that FUD. Finally, like I said before, Exchange 2007 has so many new features that we had to prioritize what got GUIs first. POP/IMAP, didn't make that list for RTM, but that does not mean it will never be there. For example, Unified Messaging. Great new feature, pretty complex to manage and administer, so we spent an enormous time getting it right (and will have to tweak it based on beta feedback I'm sure). So again: do not spread the FUD that GUI is not a priority for us,each featuresimply has to be prioritized against time and resouces. It a grim reality of the software biz, I don't like it either. That being said, I understand your frustration with some certain operations (like add/removing certs), and I would *love* to fix it and make that easier if possible (either now or in service releases). Thanks, ~vivek

Hi Tom,Like you I try to keep a spectrum of skills current. It's in that context that I view PowerShell very positively.One advantage I see from using PowerShell is that you can already use it now to manage Windows Server 2003, Windows XP or Exchange 2007. And I expect PowerShell to be in other upcoming Microsoft admin products. So PowerShell skills will be generalisable.I believe it will be part of System Center products, for example.The verb-noun metaphor is consistent throughout. How to get help on appropriate commands isn't as bad as it may at first appears.If you invest time in getting the PowerShell basics under your belt then you will be building skills with a product/technology that I anticipate will spread across many Microsoft server products. Learning PowerShell will, if you give it time, *help* you with keeping/developing skills across a generation of new products.:) ... I think you're seeing a pretty transparent "pig mask". Spend a little time looking more closely and I think you'll like what you see behind it. :)Andrew Watt MVP

Hello, Like Tom, I'm very disappointed with the new GUI for two reasons : Some tasks I do regularly are missing in the interface. For example, I now need to use CLI to add/remove permissions for a user on a mailbox or resource. As I'm a Windows, Exchange, SQL administrator and write some VB script, I'm able to learn and use the CLI interface, but some people in my organization (and it's not a small one) are not able to use a CLI interface. They are doing very simple things like add or remove permissions on mailboxes, or just check that all the rights are correct for a specific user. Now they will have to use the CLI interface to list permissions for a mailbox?..They just don't have the skills to do that. The other reason is that in the previous versions, by browsing the GUI interface, I was able to discover new functionnalities, find 2 or 3 different ways to do things, or simply check that some parameters always have the correct value. How will I be able to know or just see what is happening when there's a problem? or what are the different settings available for a parameter?... and above all what are the existing parameters that may help me to do what I want to do? The only solution with the new GUI is to browse the online help and hope I will find the information using my own words... and then use the CLI interface to do the job...it seems to be hazardous and time-consuming... In my opinion, the main advantage of MIcrosoft products is that they are easy to learn thanks to the GUI interface... and if you want to do advanced things (and have skills to do that), sometimes you have to use VB script or CLI. I just hope you will keep this advantage... Grald STROZYK MCSE 2003 Messaging and Security. PS : Sorry for my bad English, I'm just a little french guy...

There are quite a few valid points above, but here's my two cents: 1) The GUI, even though very limited, is still enough for an "Admin" to perform their job 2) The command-line is a lot more intuitive for me, as I can simplify tasks by writing atiny script that can be reused. I personally like the blackbox programming aspect of the command line and also the speed at which I can whip through a few things. Perfect example: Earlier today, I was trying to find all the UM extensions for every single user (a whopping 25, but that's besides the point) we've created in our beta environment. If there was no powershell, I would've had to open up visual studio, and write a little app that went around querying for a specific user attribute for every user (estimated time 15 minutes). Instead, I opened up the management shell, and typed in GET-UMMAILBOX. Voila, I got back all the UM enabled mailboxes, and the extensions associated with them (time spent 10 seconds). If the CLI keeps me from writing more mundane scripts to do basic things (if even possible), great. God bless Microsoft for adding the directoryservices interface into VB.Net, but I'm all for not having to open visual studio everytime I need to go retrieve or write mass attributes.

Vivek, We appreciate the new CLI, but do not want to be forced to use it. We use Windows Servers because we like the MMC GUI snap-ins. While running beta2 I found that it was impossible to configure the server to take accept incoming mail from the internet without using the new powershell console. Now, perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by 'majority of scenarios', but I was under the impression that most Exchange users send used it to send email to other people on the internet. Jonathan Miller

This whole discussion sounds like an opportunity for a third-party developer, to include the GUI admin capabilities that Microsoft has left out of the base product.Of course, Microsoft will get around to including the correct GUI-CLI mix sometime around Exchange 2010, putting the 3rd party vendor out of business :-).

The shell is great.. it will certainly speed up some tasks but there should be a GUI for every feature as well. The learn by doing argument is very relevant here. If you are not employed by a fortune 500 company there is simply no time to learn all the features by reading the docs.. the gui should offer a structured and intuitive methodto find what you need and help you to do it right. The cli is an unforgiving environment for the specialist who knows exactly what and how to do it...great addition but it should be optional, not mandatory. From the responses here it's clear that the GUI is not ready.. so we'll simply wait for E12SP3.

Here is a list of some commands that I had to learn to get my deployment to work. I think that it is ridiculous that these commdands were not included in the GUI, and there were also many other cmdlets I had to learn as well. The online cmdlet reference was what allowed me to have a successful deployment, without it I would have had problems that took 15-20 minutes to solve turn into hours and days. Once implemented, I am so far enjoying Exchange 2007, but I do think that from Microsoft's standpoint, it was a foolish decision to not include many of the more important features in the GUI. I complete agree with Dr. Shinder though in every regard. Although a vertern admin is able to figure these cmdlets out, I would not expect most admins to have a chance at completing many of these tasks. I have in practice seen many admins that were not able to understand many of the simplest tasks in Exchange 2003. The thought of these users trying to do these same tasks in Exchange 2007 seems like begging for disaster. There are going to be many end users are going to strongly dislike the Microsoft solution when their "Exchange Admin" can't figure out how to fix what seem like simple problems. Unecessary downtime and admin frustration may even lead to past Microsoft customers seeking other solutions like Apple's new up-and-coming standards-based CalDav/IMAP/LDAP offerings in their 10.5 Server. Here are some commands that should be scripted into the GUI: New-ExchangeCertificate -DomainName longhorn.aaronmarks.com,aaronmarks.com,Longhorn -KeySize 1024 -PrivateKeyExportable $True -Services "IMAP, POP, IIS, SMTP" -SubjectName "C=US,DC=aaronmarks,DC=com,S=Washington,L=Seattle,O=AM IT Consulting,OU=IT,CN=longhorn.aaronmarks.com" Enable-ExchangeCertificate -Thumbprint 422b09fd037b7b221c7c15dbe9c1819e2957625b -Services "SMTP" Set-IMAPsettings -Server LONGHORN -X509CertificateName "C=US, DC=aaronmarks, DC=com, S=Washington, L=Seattle, O=AM IT Consulting, OU=IT, CN=longhorn.aaronmarks.com" Set-IMAPsettings -Server LONGHORN -X509CertificateName "longhorn.aaronmarks.com" Get-Mailbox -Server LONGHORN | Set-Mailbox -SCLJunkThreshold 4 -SCLJunkEnabled $true Get-TransportConfig Set-TransportConfig -MaxMessageSize 200MB Get-ReceiveConnector "587 SMTP" | Add-ADPermission -User "NT Authority\Authenticated Users" -ExtendRights "ms-Exch-SMTP-Accept-Any-Sender"

I think just hte basic configuration of IMAP and POP3 for client access is a perfect example... I found that the POP3 and IMAP services were disabled (just as they are in Exch2003) so i set them to automatic and started them... i created the needed rules on ISA2006 andcould telnet to port 143/110 just fine... but i could not authenticate with my Outlook Express client on XP or Windows Mail on Vista... that is when i was dropped into the CMD line well... i TOTALLY think the command line stuff is great BUT the GUI stuff should have remained for the same tasks as people who were admins or used Exchange 2003... the extra stuff, sure, drop it to the cmd line.. but for basic setup stuff, let us use the GUI... I am now searching around the internet for the 'procedure' to get my one test e2007 32bit server working and its somewhat frustrating considering i could prep 2003 servers in minutes after laying down the intitial bits...

I'm completely lost in the new powershell. This is about as enjoyable as administering a Linux server without the GUI. I saw the x509 post and this is about the only place I see anyone even talking about it. I have plenty of people using TREOs of all ages so many use POP3. I can't figure a way to use our godaddy certificate on the POP3 system - when using Outlook2007 it asks if it can use the untrusted certificate. when I look at the certificate name it is myservername - not exchange.mydomain.com I tried this through the powershell - [PS] C:\>Set-PopSettings -server MYSERVERNAME -X509CertificateName "exchange.MYDOMAIN.com"WARNING: The command completed successfully but no settings of 'MYSERVERNAME\1' have been modified. My cert is exchange.myserversname.com - no idea how else to assign it but obviously I'm doing something wrong as I'm getting the "servername\1" message - no idea what the \1 means. if I put the cert in my c:\temp directory - is there a way to assign it? I appreciate you help.

OK - I got it to work - if anyone has a similar dilemma Install the certificate from your provider to your default web site in IIS From the powershell - Run the following command: dir cert:\LocalMachine\My | fl Get the thumbprint value assigned to the correct certificate enable-ExchangeCertificate -thumbprintTHUMBPRINTVALUE -services "IIS,IMAP,POP"

Hi Brian, Do you think they'll have it fixed by Exchange 2007 SP3? If you find a 3rd party solution, let us know! There's a HUGE Exchange 2003 community that's holding off on Exchange 2007 migration because of the management issues. Tom ISA MVP www.isaserver.org

I agree with most of the comments on here. What a complete pile of junk you've delivered. Terrific, it's 2007 and you've discovered the CLI. Well done. If you're running the IT services for a small-medium size business Exchange 2007 now means everything takes far longer to do asyou struggle to learn and implement a new CLI language. Exchange 2007 is clearly aim at larger scale businesses who can employ back room guys specialising in the new language and able to spend hours configuring their exchange server. For the rest of us who have to juggle numerous different plaforms and don't want to spend hours figuring out a command syntax which they used to do with an effective UI this product is a complete waste of time. I manage several Linux based platforms as well so I'm not averse to having to use a CLI but I thought the whole point of Microsoft's philosophy was delivering technology via easy yet powerful GUI's. If this isn't the case I may as well shift wholesale on to a far more stable platform like Linux. Rather like Vista Microsoft takes aim and completely misses it's target audience.

Not only that, but legacy exoledb / excdo / event sinks no longer work either. So the software that used work fine on ex 2k or 2k3 now no longer works and needs a rewrite from the ground up in "dot not" (restricted macro environment) theyclaim that exoledb and excdo support is still there but it's now 64 bit and support for legacy apps is gone. this is not evolution.. this is destruction of invested capital.

Since 1996I've spent most of my time admining various flavors of unix. I generally prefer the command line. The CLI implemented with exchange 2007 is hideous, shame on you. While I would enjoy adding some more constructive feedback, the above posts summed up the bulk of my complaints. It's aweful, seriously...

Hi Tom: I am somewhat in agreement with you on the new interface, but it has grown on me. The PowerShell / EMS takes some getting used to, but I'm nowreasonably pleased with it. However, it is not something that is easily "jumped in to." I was very intimidated by the EMS at first and still see a lot of people that are reluctant to use it. Your reaction is fairly common, though. Over that last year, I have been presenting at conferences and one day events and have probably present "the new and improved E2K7" to 10,000 people. The reaction to the new GUI and the EMS is mixed with a certain percentage of vocal people threating to disembowl ME for changing the interface. :-) I tell them not to shoot the messenger. Most importantly, people have to let Microsoft know that they are unhappy and specifically what needs to improve. I suspect we will see a lot of improvements in the GUI when SP1 is released, but customers need to tell the Microsoft folks what is wrong and where there is room for improvement. My $0.02 worth.

Hi Jim, I want the same level of control over the following services in the GUI that I had with Exchange 2000/2003: POP3 IMAP4 SMTP - Exchange 2007 doesn't even have an SMTP service, they had to obfuscate it That means being about to control authentication, security, etc (especially certificates) like was used to be able to, and not have to use some Gonad crapplet to do it. I've been working with Exchange 2007 quite a bit in the last month as I need to figure out how to make it work with the ISA Firewall. I'm used to using PowerHell and I'll tell you that I hate it every time I have to fall back to using the dreaded thing, espeically when I used to be able to flawlessly click through the UI in previous versions of Exchange. And then the Exchange Team adds insult to injury by providing information about the 600 character command line strings you need to enter in the Help File and then make it impossilble to copy just the string. Nope, can't do that. What you have to do is use Control+Something to copy the entire Help file, paste it into Notepad, and then fish through the text in Notepad to find the string. There an old phrase that goes "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" -- but I think we can beat Linux easily, we certainly aren't so much on the ropes that we have to join them yet. Tom

"Gonad Crapplet" Wow. I'm personally disappointed to see this type of lewdand unproffesional behaviour. I hate to say this, but I've flipped the bit on your feedback---it is very clear that you are an internet troll that loves to stir up FUD. The first fact is, PowerShell is a suprise hit and quite useful to administrators and power users. The second fact is, that the majority of GUI pieces you mentioned are being added in SP1. And if they are not, using *constructive* feedback we will keep adding more. But based on the trail from your postings on this thread, its very likely that noone will take this feedback seriously.

I agree with what most people on here are saying, that is that it is now 2007, CLI is extremely dated, the CL might be powerful and useful but really, in todays age this could all have been included into the GUI.Even devices such as routers / switches which were always traditionally CL based now have GUIs which are just as powerful as the CL. I really cannot understand why Microsoft would go back to a CL when exchange 2003 was an excellent piece of software without and CL necessary.In saying this I dont really have much of an issue with trying to learn the CL, sure it may take some time and frustration but i am willing to learn, and im pretty much forced to learn since im the exchange guy for my work anyway. However im not entirely happy about being forced to learn the CL for such basic things as adding permissions to a mailbox, configuring email and attachment limits. In my opinion the command line should only be for extremely rare tasks. A lot of people seem to be complaining about adding extra permissions to a mailbox. This to me is not a rare task at all. I quite ofter need to add additional users to mailboxes for managers and such.I eagerly await SP1 in the hope that things like this may be fixed.

Im a MCT teaching a lot of students how to use Exchange Server 2007 (and still 2003 ) like tshinder most students is disappointed on the GUI or should I say afraid of the Shell. I think that everyone would agree that the Shell is a huge improvement in making long and trivial jobs fast and easy - but dont forget that most old time Windows administrators dont know how to script and they chose Microsoft products because of the GUI (other reasons too ofcause). As far as I understand ALL GUI actions calls the underlying shell so why dont we learn from The SQL 2005 GUI and simply add a Script to clipboard action in the GUI the script is already there afterwards we will be able to read and learn from the script.. and possible reuse it in a similar situation. Looking at the Server 2008 it doesnt look like powershell will be in there, not in the Core editions anyway I hoped that our Exchange PowerShell knowledge would be handy on the new platform - but guess not.. Anyone have a comment on this ?

I agree Rakem. "the command line should only be for extremely rare tasks" indeed. Nice for bulk operations. And only when the UI can be used to show the CL syntax with copy-to-sandbox plus some context relevant variation.. I have a dream of of Exchange withan empty sandbox, I use the UI to define my action on one user, I click "copy to sandbox" I open the sandbox and hoover my mouse over the user name. The screen comes to live, a pop-up quickly fills up with hyperlinked text. It's the auto suggest list and itshows me all different categories that could replace that single user name. I pick an object and in real time the evaluatortells me what the pro's and cons are for such a transaction.. it tells me that an alternative method would be better if I want to achieve "this and that" etc etc A dream of an intelligent supportive environment.. with an expert system ready to assist when needed.. no an unintelligentunforgiving semiTelnet prompt. 40 years of computer history .. from1 k ram with amber screen to 6 gb ram with flat screen...but stillthe same prompt displayed. "syntax error"and we sell it as a great innovation. Is that progress or marketing as usual?

I am a veteran of Linux, and have been using it since 1998. I am no stranger to the command line, and I find it extremely useful when implemented well.However, Exchange 2007 has all the disadvantages of a poor GUI and a poor command shell. Sure, the command line is useful for large enterprises who have 18 Exchange admins, like Bank of America where I used to work (luckily when still using Exchange 2003), but not having the ability to change user mailbox permissions in the GUI?That's just asinine, and unconscionable. This alienates many administrators, and makes my life harder, and increases the time it takes me to do simple Exchange tasks from a few seconds to, in some cases, several days.This is insane.I've noticed that anyone who disagrees with the Microsofties here is accused of being a troll and spreading FUD, and all that. Whatever. I've been in IT since the 1990s. I now control a lot of money and make a lot of decisions as to what companies should use for their IT infrastructure. If there is any possible way that I can convince the small- to medium-sized companies that I consult for to explore other email solutions, I will do so -- even if it's Linux-based, as at least the command line there makes some sense.It's not that I am not comfortable with Powershell/EMS. I am. It's just that I hate it and think it mars the good name of Exchange, and also makes day-to-day administration of most tasks much, much harder.Old days: User calls up and wants me to add some permissions to a mailbox: Click! Click! Click! Done. 8 seconds.Today: User calls up and wants me to add some permissions to a mailbox: Oh, what's that command? (Looks it up.) Oh yeah. Ok, hmm, wrong syntax. Let me try that again. Oops, wrong syntax again. To user: Can I call you back in an hour? I have to wade through 20 pages of tech docs to figure this out.User: Confused because it used to take 8 seconds.If there weren't so very much removed from the EMC, I'd be more pleased with it. What a waste of my damn time.I will not be recommending Microsoft Exchange in the future to anyone until this is corrected, and though I am sure MSFT will not notice it in ther bottom line, I am not the only one by far who feels this way.What a terrible decision for a product that I really liked, and what a terrible response to complaints.

No, I'm not an Internet troll. I've written over 30 books on Microsoft products, promote Microsoft products whereever I go, and have written over 1000 articles on Microsoft products and the virtues of Microsoft products. I've also been an ISA Firewall MVP for the last six years and run www.isaserver.org which has over 45,000 registered members and over 250,000 posts on the Web boards, of which 45,000 posts aremy answers to user questions. I am a big MS fan and really appreciate the excellent work that Microsoft, in general, does. You clearly travel in different circles than I do. Saying that "PowerShell is a surprise hit" reflects your interaction with dedicated full time Exchange admins. My expereince, with IT generalists, is completely different. For example, compare certificate assignments to the various services in in Exchange 2003 and Exchange 2007. I could assign different certs for each service in Exchange 2003 in a matter of minutes. In Exchange 2007 is takes over an hour to figure out what to put into the command line and then pray that the black box does what it should. And precisely what "FUD" have have stirred up? What have I said that can be taken as untrue? My goal is not to create FUD, but to get you guys to fix the stuff that's broken, that's all. I WANT to promote Exchange 2007 as the best thing that's ever been done by Microsoft -- I really very much want to do that. But the Exchange Team wants to force the MS faithful to use the CLI, and that's not why many IT generalists go with MS products. We're not asking for anything other than what we had in Exchange 2003 -- the ability to manage routine, easy tasks from the CLI. I've mentioned this certificate issue multiple times, but you focus on my sense of humor (which you called 'lurid'). I'm sorry you interpreted that way, but this is what I hear in the field (I'm not clever enough to make something like that up). I represent a user community in the tens of thousands and they want to see these changes made and I thought that maybe some colorful language would help ameliorate the situation. I guess I was wrong on that account. I hope you'll see it in your heart to flip the bit again and consider our requests for making all capabilities configurable in the Exchange 2003 UI available in the Exchange 2007 UI. Thanks! Tom tshinder@isaserver.org www.isaserver.org

I completely agree with Dr. Tom, The Exchange 2007 command shell is the biggest piece of *** I have ever seen come out of Microsoft. The command syntax is arcane and arbitrary and there is no usefull documentation or instruction on how to do anything. So much for being a time saver. Don't try to sell me on the *** that it just takes a little time to get used to because after months of having a production server there is still no usefull documentation for Exchange 2007 and about 10 total KB articles. There is no way I will recommend upgrading to this version to my clients. I've had an easier time setting up IMAP on a linux box than on Exchange 2007 and I'm not a linux guy. Dissapointment doesn't come close to describe what I think of your latest "efforts". You've really dropped the ball. Maybe your competitors can come out with something better. -David

i dont believe that to view the size of a mailbox you need to use the command line...... how is this easier / better than being able to veiw the size of every single persons mailbox like you can in exchange 2003?i hope service pack 1 fixes up stupid things like this

From I can tell from Beta 2 of E2K7 SP1, there is still no way to view mailbox sizes (other than one-by-one) using the GUI. You can look at an individual's mailbox properties via the Mailbox properties in EMC. But to do a listing of the entire database, I don't think that feature is back. This type fo feedback is the type of thing that Microsoft needs to hear. I'm not throwing stones here or anything, but Microsoft has never provided a "super polished" product on the major generational release of any software package. Windows 95 took some polishing, Windows NT 4.1 took polishing, Windows 2000 took polishing, Exchange 2000 took polishing, etc... Us early adopters are the ones that help provide the feedback that make the product better. I am not a "Microsoft talking head" by any stretch of the imagination. I have told many people to wait until SP1 before deploying E2K7. Microsoft needs to hear your complaints, suggestions, and constructive criticism.

OK - we haveour SP- GUI management still doesn't cover half the basic tasks that the previous versions of Exchange did. I'm not saying they should get rid of Powershell - although if the GUI management did everything the old ones did, I would never ever have to use the hideously primitive DOS commands of "powershell" again. I guess all the talk by the developers that they'd put the controls back into the exchange mangement console were bogus. Good news for Apple though - the head of the exchange group is now in charge of Windows Moble 7 - I guess with WM7 - you'll be able to check your e-mail - not by clicking on the messaging icon but by simply going to the new WM7 powershell and typing the simple command "check messages account widgets.com user:bob /domain:widgets.com PW:thissucks /order:newfirst /items:unread /display:320x240" - this will be so much more powerful than using a primitive and time consuming gui interface.

Is there a better way to view mailbox sizes than using the command line yet?