wissel.net

1 - I believe that Exchange is able to compete with Notes because it is incremental. It is incremental in many ways

You start off with the Outlook and you increment it by adding Exchange. You start off with Windows client and then you use MS Server. You need a db, so you add MS SQL Server.

The ecosystem then grows with many, many MS centric IT people out there.

It's incremental on a product basis and it is incremental across the stack.

Notes is great but the learning curve is much steeper. Documentation is not as easy to get.

2 - Yep, that's the short list. Why is Exchange acceptable? Because it is possible to support--I can get Microsoft certified training everywhere. And, Microsoft stresses it.

They host local events (with food), they create seminars for the partners to distribute, and they feed SMB with lots of other good (SQL Server) solutions. Sure, Exchange is a weak link, but it's tolerated. IBM still can't compete against the infrastructure that Microsoft has created with its partners for an SMB architecture.

3 - > Complicated admin interface

Not having worked with the latest versions of Exchange, certainly administering Exchange is quite easy. In Notes you have the heavy and very complicated Admin client and have all the *!&#@# of Notes ID's. Look at all the Domino config options in all sorts of locations. It certainly isn't easy for SMB

Pete

4 - I don't know if I can support Peter's comment. I have never had to administer an Exchange server, but we do have an Admin Client (leaving out any arguments as to the UI or whatever). While I am using the Domino Admin client, I have access to pretty much everything I need. I don't see the Exchange Management Shell as an "easy" interface. Leaving the Admin to enter long strings of commands?

I am probably wrong, and the Exchange Admins just accept that as their fate. Much like I accept the Domino Admin client.

5 - Integration is another point.

MS Exchange Server is only integrated with other MS products and some partner's products, but that presents a certain bias.

A real argument would be the tight AD integration - which is a benefit if you're an AD organisation, and most are these days.

A bogus argument - which I've seen - relies on memories of software like Backup Exec only using MAPI to send email. That meant setting up Outlook, which meant Exchange (in most cases).
Yes, I know how stupid that sounds. And having to maintain a separate account + profile just to send emails about your backups was not only dumb, but painful given how crap MAPI and Outlook are.
(It would crash, hang around on the machine, and not send any more emails. Only restarting the machine fixed this, because it had crashed in another logon instance which had no console access. But I digress...)

Basically, historically things have been slightly better integrated with the MS stack and with some products by close MS partners.
In practice, it's only the AD integration that should matter. But in perception, the small little things mount up.