Network restructuring advice
-
@Dashrender said:
That's one way to look at it - another is that the expense of going hosted isn't worth it to them, ....
That's unrelated. Don't mix a discussion around understanding risk with valuing risk. That's completely different. If email isn't seen as that important that's absolutely fine, for many businesses it is not. But that's wholly different than feeling that they've gotten lucky and ignoring rational thought. In one case, they lack logical thinking and feel that being lucky is better than being reliable. In the other they don't see reliability as valuable. Completely different concepts.
-
@Dashrender said:
If you need only email and no shared calendars, something like Rackspace $2/month/user (normal price - what one of my customers is being billed through NTG) it definitely gets hard to locally host, but even if you need shared calendars, O365 at $4/m/u does add up quickly.
Doesn't Rackspace email have shared calendars?
Edit: Sure does. I was sure that we had always used those.
-
OK, the shared calendar is news to me - not that my client wants it. I asked, they say 'meh'.
Though I have no idea how that shared calendar works when it comes to locally installed Outlook, not the web portal - and does it support the sharing of a person's calendar or is it just a shared calendar for the company?
-
@Dashrender said:
OK, the shared calendar is news to me - not that my client wants it. I asked, they say 'meh'.
Rackspace Email is full featured. Not aware of any enterprise feature that it doesn't have. That's always been their thing, all the features at a much lower price for people not addicted to Exchange itself.
-
@Dashrender said:
Though I have no idea how that shared calendar works when it comes to locally installed Outlook, not the web portal - and does it support the sharing of a person's calendar or is it just a shared calendar for the company?
Normal shared calendars. It's actually the other way around, ALL of the functionality of Rackspace Email is in the web client, not Outlook. It's a web-native service, that isn't a second class interface, Outlook is the second class service here. OWA is starting to replace Outlook as the main interface for Exchange too, especially now that services like Clutter can only be controlled in the web client.
So yes, individual shared calendars. We were doing this all of the time. The feature goes back at least to 2009. Probably long before that.
-
Good to know.
Hmmm... While I appreciate the anywhere access to systems like this, there are times I just prefer an app instead of a web interface - frankly sometimes if only because the icon in the start menu is dedicated to function (though I think on Windows now, if you launch a site from a .website shortcut it does create it's own icon while running on the start bar).
-
@Dashrender said:
Good to know.
Hmmm... While I appreciate the anywhere access to systems like this, there are times I just prefer an app instead of a web interface - frankly sometimes if only because the icon in the start menu is dedicated to function (though I think on Windows now, if you launch a site from a .website shortcut it does create it's own icon while running on the start bar).
Web applications have had the ability to have their own icons going at least back to Windows 98. You can even make them look so much like a normal app that the users can't tell. In fact that's all that your local Outlook is now, that's HTML5 and Javascript coming from a local webserver, you know!
You can do this on your phone too.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Good to know.
Hmmm... While I appreciate the anywhere access to systems like this, there are times I just prefer an app instead of a web interface - frankly sometimes if only because the icon in the start menu is dedicated to function (though I think on Windows now, if you launch a site from a .website shortcut it does create it's own icon while running on the start bar).
Web applications have had the ability to have their own icons going at least back to Windows 98. You can even make them look so much like a normal app that the users can't tell. In fact that's all that your local Outlook is now, that's HTML5 and Javascript coming from a local webserver, you know!
You can do this on your phone too.
I know you can do this on your phone - how do you do this on Windows and not have it mixed together with the other browser icons (all merged) that are running? I'm not talking simply the icon on the desktop.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Good to know.
Hmmm... While I appreciate the anywhere access to systems like this, there are times I just prefer an app instead of a web interface - frankly sometimes if only because the icon in the start menu is dedicated to function (though I think on Windows now, if you launch a site from a .website shortcut it does create it's own icon while running on the start bar).
Web applications have had the ability to have their own icons going at least back to Windows 98. You can even make them look so much like a normal app that the users can't tell. In fact that's all that your local Outlook is now, that's HTML5 and Javascript coming from a local webserver, you know!
You can do this on your phone too.
I know you can do this on your phone - how do you do this on Windows and not have it mixed together with the other browser icons (all merged) that are running? I'm not talking simply the icon on the desktop.
I believe he's referring to a web shortcut for the mail page. It will capture the favicon from the site, and use it as the desktop icon so it looks like an application. A pain in the butt when ppl actually believe it's an application and can't navigate to the email without the shortcut being present (even those "familiar" with web mail)
-
@whizzard said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Good to know.
Hmmm... While I appreciate the anywhere access to systems like this, there are times I just prefer an app instead of a web interface - frankly sometimes if only because the icon in the start menu is dedicated to function (though I think on Windows now, if you launch a site from a .website shortcut it does create it's own icon while running on the start bar).
Web applications have had the ability to have their own icons going at least back to Windows 98. You can even make them look so much like a normal app that the users can't tell. In fact that's all that your local Outlook is now, that's HTML5 and Javascript coming from a local webserver, you know!
You can do this on your phone too.
I know you can do this on your phone - how do you do this on Windows and not have it mixed together with the other browser icons (all merged) that are running? I'm not talking simply the icon on the desktop.
I believe he's referring to a web shortcut for the mail page. It will capture the favicon from the site, and use it as the desktop icon so it looks like an application. A pain in the butt when ppl actually believe it's an application and can't navigate to the email without the shortcut being present (even those "familiar" with web mail)
Sure, that works for a desktop icon, but 'normally' that does not work for seeing a different icon on the start bar. In the past assuming you were using Chrome, the window with your webmail inside it would be lumped together with all of your other Chrome windows/tabs. Though I'll admit recently I've noticed (on other people's machines, not mine) that somehow they have multiple IE 11 icons on their start bar, all of them active (we only use IE here).
-
there is a way to do it, I'm just not sure how you tell it to do that, not having access to a Windows desktop these days
-
Here we go:
http://www.howtogeek.com/141431/how-to-turn-web-apps-into-first-class-desktop-citizens/In Chrome, it has moved to
In Internet Explorer, the given instructions in the how-to article work.
-
Yeah - I ran into the .websites (favicons) by accident. And what's worse is they break everything. If you're a LastPass user .websites based shortcuts won't launch tool bar so you can log into LastPass.
-
Upgrading the storage of the R730 to house all VMs and data, would it be advisable to leave the current 480s for hosting the VMs and buying 5 10K SAS or 7.2K NLSAS to use as storage? I want to achieve about 6TB of storage.
-
Not sure what you mean by "hosting the VMs" as opposed to "use as storage."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not sure what you mean by "hosting the VMs" as opposed to "use as storage."
Well the VMs would be installed on the SSDs and the application data would be on the other
-
@whizzard said:
Well the VMs would be installed on the SSDs and the application data would be on the other
But the application data is part of the VMs, right?
What portion of the VMs would you want to be faster than the data? Is the speed of data access not important?
-
@whizzard said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Not sure what you mean by "hosting the VMs" as opposed to "use as storage."
Well the VMs would be installed on the SSDs and the application data would be on the other
It is, but I'm thinking loading time for the OS and application in the event of a reboot. For approximately 100 users, and the most intensive application being document management software, I think the SAS should suffice.
-
@whizzard said:
It is, but I'm thinking loading time for the OS and application in the event of a reboot.
OS always goes on the slowest storage possible. How many seconds at reboot is it worth having a slower system all the time? How often do you reboot when people are in the middle of using the system? Is saving one second or two every couple of years valuable compared to much faster systems every day?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@whizzard said:
It is, but I'm thinking loading time for the OS and application in the event of a reboot.
OS always goes on the slowest storage possible. How many seconds at reboot is it worth having a slower system all the time? How often do you reboot when people are in the middle of using the system? Is saving one second or two every couple of years valuable compared to much faster systems every day?
So you'll suggest getting all SSDs? or still some HDDs for the OS? But wouldn't installing the Application on the slower disc, slow down performance of the application even if the application stores or databases are on the faster discs?
