We're still running Exchange 2003 (I know, don't ask). Now we got a question "from upstairs" to deploy a new, seperate email environment, running Exchange 2007. Are there any compelling, showstopping reasons why 2007 is the preferred choice over 2010? I mean, all the rough edges are surely gone in 2010 by now, so it's not that we'll be guinea-pigs when running 2010, right?

no you will not be guinea-pigs if you upgrade to exchange 2010, most of the enterprises are planning to migrate to exchange 2010, you are correct we already have exchange 2010 sp1 so if you are planning to upgrade your enviorment Exchange server 2010 sp1 is what you should go for. unless you have reasons to put 2007 like some mission critical applications that integerate with exchange and not compatible with exchange 2010 yet..Dhruv

If your organization is huge, I would definitely go with Exchange 2010. Remember to plan the migration.

I cannot think of any legitimate reason to migrate from 2003 to 2007. 2010 is the clear choice. The migration path is better, and the end product is more capable and feature rich. Many companies find themselves in a similar cycle. Skipping every other release. The same was true for Exchange 5.5-2003, XP-Win7 or Office 2003-2010. Some companies like to stay on the latest and greatest, and others don’t get around to it until the following release. I see both as healthy cycles. Mike Crowley Check out My Blog!