Microsoft’s Office Communications Server 2007 and Office Communicator 2007 have been released to manufacturing. Microsoft has not revealed a launch date for Office Communications Server and Office Communicator, other than to say that they will hit the shelves sometime this autumn.
OK, we can now add Office Communications Server 2007 to the list:
o Biztalk Server
o Commerce Server
o Content Management Server
o Exchange Server
o Forms Server
o Groove Server
o Host Integration Server
o Identity Integration Server
o ISA Server
o Live Communications Server
o Project Server
o SharePoint Server
o Speech Server
o SQL Server
o Systems Management Server
o Virtual Server
o Windows Compute Cluster Server
o Windows Server
o Windows Server Update Services
o Windows Small Business Server
o Windows Storage Server
OK, I’m dizzy now. There will be a test on this tomorrow…
Live Communications Server
Office Communications Server is Live Communications Server, they are not seperate products, just a renaming for the new version.
> OK, we can now add Office Communications Server 2007 to the list:
alright – you’re joking, aren’t you?
No, it seems to me the list is just too long. I get confused by all the “shades” of servers Microsoft has. They have a confusing product line. I mean, ‘Biztalk Server’, ‘Commerce Server’, ‘Groove Server’, ‘Host Integration Server’…sometimes it seems like there are people at Microsoft that find new ways to package stuff every few months.
sigh – and i thought you made up half of the names!
I get confused by all the “shades” of servers Microsoft has. They have a confusing product line. I mean, ‘Biztalk Server’, ‘Commerce Server’, ‘Groove Server’, ‘Host Integration Server’…sometimes it seems like there are people at Microsoft that find new ways to package stuff every few months.
Its only confusing if you don’t know what you need, in which case you need to hit the websites for the products you want to know more about at microsoft.com and read about the products in question.
If you don’t use Groove collaboration software in your enterprise then its a safe bet to say you don’t need a groove server.
Its only confusing if you don’t know what you need, in which case you need to hit the websites for the products you want to know more about at microsoft.com and read about the products in question.
Indeed, I agree. I know what a good portion of that is, the rest of it I probably don’t have a use for yet, because I haven’t run across them in my searches for solutions.
No, it seems to me the list is just too long. I get confused by all the “shades” of servers Microsoft has. They have a confusing product line. I mean, ‘Biztalk Server’, ‘Commerce Server’, ‘Groove Server’, ‘Host Integration Server’…sometimes it seems like there are people at Microsoft that find new ways to package stuff every few months.
That’s exactly my gripe with Microsoft. On the one hand the have really nice solutions for smaller companies (for example, I can see a lot of smaller companies benefit from something like Groove Server), but on the other hand, why do they have to make it so bl**dy complicated to find out what piece of software does what and works together with what. (And after that, try finding out what licences you need for what…)
For me, many of these Microsoft products feel way too technology centered. I need lean solutions for problems, not top heavy technology showcases.
I’m not sure what the problem is here. I prefer to have choice. Take a look at Linux, there’s plenty of choice of distributions there. If you want to complain about the number of different server operating systems then Microsoft certainly isn’t on the top of the list.
Touche! You got me on that one!
I imagine that’s what people think when they look at Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, etc – and that’s just one distro!
That was a past point made by Eugenia about Ubuntu having only one version – I disagreed then but maybe there is a point to that argument.
In Microsoft’s defense, this product actually has potential to change how you interact with your phone and has the potential to change the entire enterprise phone market. Microsoft has already fully signed up Nortel and Siemens and has Avaya fully integrating with the client portion, so they already are working closely with about 75% of the enterprise IP Telephony market. The only thing standing in Microsoft’s path to world domination will be Cisco. Microsoft will have to fiercly compete with Cisco’s voIP solution for the rest since both companies see the implication of this and both are in a position to fight hard for it. If Microsoft is successful, you will most likely see the death of the PBX and the death of the enterprise telephony market (bye bye Avaya and Siemens, and bye bye to Cisco’s and Nortel’s ability to profit from IP Telephony.) If Microsoft fails, the enterprise telephony market will remain strong and vibrant but too diverse and too complex. This will be a very interesting fight to watch and Microsoft will have all the advantages it had when people were sick of all the different server operating systems out there.
Edited 2007-07-31 18:26
I have nothing against the product, in fact, I am familiar with it and am sure it is fine. I just tire of the sheer number of “niche” server products that Microsoft markets, some of which overlap in functionality. I am still waiting for “Microsoft BSOD Server” and “Microsoft FUD Management Server”!
For traditional infrastructure maybe, but they’ll still sell the phones and VoIP service. You’ll more likely just have a smarter/easier to setup PBX for new installations (especially for small businesses via ResponsePoint). For existing installations, one of the selling points of UCS is that you don’t have to rip/replace your existing PBX, and can instead use UCS to easily upgrade its capabilities.
For those who don’t know, Office Communicator is basically like MSN but for office workers. And thus, this new product “Office Communications Server 2007” is sort of like having your own MSN server. I also think it supports stuff like VOIP calls etc.
For those who don’t know, Office Communicator is basically like MSN but for office workers. And thus, this new product “Office Communications Server 2007” is sort of like having your own MSN server. I also think it supports stuff like VOIP calls etc.
Correct, it supports VOIP. It also intregrates your IM with outlook so that when outlook shows you “in a meeting” your IM status can also change to “in a meeting” or “busy” etc.
Pretty slick.
Office Communication Server 2007 is a cool piece of technology, but there are a few gotchas. First, the core OCS installation provides IM, presence (away, idle, available, etc) as well as PC to PC voice. If you want to use VoIP, you most deploy a whole other piece of hardware (or virtualize) with another copy of W2K3 server to be a Mediation server (MS term). This mediation server converts RTAudio (MS proprietary codec) to the codec of a gateway used by companies such as Quintum and Audiocodes. Now you have 2 servers, and all you have provided is VoIP and IM. Another gotcha becomes apparent if you want to integrate with the outside IM world (yahoo, msn, aol). You need another server called and Edge server to bridge the private and public networks and to allow public IM network connectivity. I am only just scratching the surface, but as you can see, it can be an expensive solution. There are a lot of really slick features, but be prepared for a huge outlay of capital for clustering and licenses (don’t forget Exchange if you want to have the voicemail show up in your mailbox
)
In a nutshell, MS is positioning this product to take over the phone system in your enterprise. You can put it in one piece at a time and use is concurrently with your PBX, but MS’s real intention is to become the IP PBX of your office and to push you to what they call “Unified Communications”
“In a nutshell, MS is positioning this product to take over the phone system in your enterprise. You can put it in one piece at a time and use is concurrently with your PBX, but MS’s real intention is to become the IP PBX of your office and to push you to what they call “Unified Communications””
You got it exactly right. At the moment, Office Communications Server 2007 is very limited because Microsoft has 0 marketshare so they are “integrating” with Nortel, Siemens, Avaya, etc. This will however change in future releases and Microsoft will slowly gain more and more functionality and slowly taking functionality away from the traditional phone vendors. As SIP (phones, trunks, etc.) gains popularity and enterprises become dependent on the integration Microsoft provides to their ERP, Office Suite, Exchange, OS, etc., these traditional PBX vendors will have no option but to watch their market slowly eaten away by Microsoft. They will not be able to pull out and they will see their core software application become meaningless. Sure, phones will always be around and these traditional vendors can still sell phones, but there will be no money in this. Just look at how AT&T is doing in regular home analog phonesets and you will get a rough idea on how well Avaya, Nortel, Siemens, Toshiba, NEC, etc. will be doing from selling SIP Phones. (To give you a hint, at the moment, they sell them from anywhere between $300 to $1000.00, when SIP takes off, they will be going for under $50.00.) I do not wish to get into the moral implications of this or whether to figure out if this is a good thing or a bad thing for the industry. My point is to clarify that this software is not aimed to be a niche product (like BizTalk, MOM, SMS.) On the contrary, it has the potential to change the entire industry, and if successful, will be as common as Exchange Server is throughout enterprises and throughout SMB.
Edited 2007-08-01 00:48
“He also detailed the pricing of those new licenses: the “standard” CAL, featuring instant messaging and presence capabilities, will cost roughly US$21 for the average enterprise, while the “enterprise” CAL will add new conferencing and VoIP call management features and cost roughly US$97 for the average enterprise.”
Almost 100 dollars per seat to can use a MSN-like and VOIP and spread malware by MSN ?! Why not use a free and linux-based jabber server and Asterisk/OpenSER ?
Because the Linux products don’t intergrate without a whole heap of messing around. Single Sign On (LDAP is not SSO) doesn’t even exist for half the jabber servers out there, and getting it working is a major mission.
I would wager that Office Communications Server will talk to an Active Directory and Exchange server without needing to jump through lots of hoops. Volia, there’s all your accounts, ACLs, address books and SSL certs set up and ready to go. That’s why nobody cares about Asterix and most of the open source Jabber servers. Of course, the fact that the F/OSS world doesn’t even have a answer to Active Directory probably doesn’t help either. Everyone keep re-inventing the bloody wheel for accounts managment instead of just hanging off a standard setup.