Every new version of Exchange Server seems to need more space on a server’s boot drive. Given that, you may be faced with building an Exchange Server and wish you had made the boot partition larger. Once it’s done, though, you can’t always take it back and reconfigure everything. Here, I have some strategies for redirecting drive use from an Exchange Server installed on C: to another, larger data drive.
Note: This article is focused on Exchange Server 2016 on-premise. Newer and older versions of Exchange may act differently.
As is often the case with Microsoft operating system releases, we’re interested in the beta and preview versions, releases dates, and what Microsoft will end up calling them. With a long history of just screwing up names (or at the very least, making them confusing), these things can tend to be a big thing while we use the software for the next few years.
With any major new release of Microsoft’s flagship server operating system, I stand up and take notice. The process of evaluating a new server operating system is essential to understanding how new features work, how the operating system installs, and generally getting a feel for what to expect. This time around, Windows Technical Preview 2 was released on Microsoft’s website and made available for download. Usually, this process is a challenge because we don’t always have the best and newest hardware available to test with; but I tend to find what I can in the lab to test as many features as possible. I took a bare-metal Dell PowerEdge server (with a RAID 5 drive setup), and installed off of a burned DVD.
Widely expected to be an announcement of a fresh Windows version, today Microsoft held an event that wasn’t available online. Not having this event streamed online was a disappointment. I have the sense that Microsoft was aware of the Apple iPhone event debacle and decided to forgo the pain (if the stream didn’t work). In that way, it’s a good move.
Microsoft has had an interesting history with creating versions of Windows Server that might fit into different verticals. You might recall the horrible Windows Small Business Server version for an example of how you can’t just slap a bunch of product together and make a good product. What microsoft tends to do is create limits on products that can do more, instead of taking limited products and giving them more options. No where is this more evident than Windows Server 2012 Foundation edition. Read on to see why you might not want to implement this version.
So, you may find yourself in a situation where you’re recovering an Exchange 2007 system, but your entire Exchange server is dead, and your backup is not exactly what you wanted. I’ve had the misfortune to see a number of these sorts of scenarios, and the one unifying key is that no one wants data loss. If you want every active user’s data back, here’s one way you can get there.
If you were taking notes on your Mac, you might use a local native text editor such as TextWrangler. But, that’s just text. If you wanted more, with some font and cloud capabilities, you might look to Apple’s iCloud Notes. It’s in the cloud, and you can use the notes on all your Apple devices. Jumping into this game, Microsoft has introduced their own cloud-based note-taking application for OS X called OneNote.
This is rather childish. With Windows XP nearing its end of support (for updates, that is), Microsoft intends to push an update to Windows XP that simply nags the user with the above. I’ll paraphrase the above message: “We just want to tell you a fact, and provide nothing else useful”. What’s so shocking and dumb about this, is that there is no real upgrade path for this operating system. The question is then, why bother Microsoft?
When I’m asked about “What if” scenarios, it often turns to thinking of the supposed failure that is Windows 8 (and 8.1, to a degree). Many users and technology enthusiasts alike have theories as to how the the failure of Windows 8 in 2012, could have succeed if only Microsoft did something different. From creating different versions, to allowing the Start Menu from boot to an alternative patch of Windows Phone 7. The more intriguing question, however, is if Windows 8 would have succeeded if Microsoft branched its “Metro” and “Classic” interfaces into two distinct products.
Today, the Internets blew up with news about Microsoft buying Nokia’s devices and services business:
…a transaction whereby Microsoft will purchase substantially all of Nokia’s Devices & Services business
I’m not sure that anyone knows what “substantially all” means, is that everything or just mostly everything? I also find it interesting that less than two weeks ago Ballmer announced his retirement. The timing seems oddly orchestrated. Nokia and Microsoft might seem like a logical union to take on the likes of Apple and Google who already have hardware divisions.