On the 3 May at 11am BST The Register’s Lucy Sheriff will be joined by Julian Elve, of The Schools Network, to talk about his recent Office 365 migration. Julian’s responsible for an environment that you might classify as ‘normal’ enough for generic SaaS services and distributed enough to see serious benefits from cloud based …
"For any of you considering Office 365, or thinking about shifting some critical apps into the cloud..."
... the men in white coats will be here shortly. Here, bite down on this.
Having spent about a month trying and failing to get the absolutely atrocious Office365 customer support helpdesk to try and link my Office Pro Plus and SharePoint accounts to allow web-based document editing I can thoroughly recommend sticking with Google Docs. Microsoft should be absolutely ashamed of the shambles that they're running. They can't even follow basic instructions like calling a specific phone number during specific hours.
What a depressing name!
Perhaps Microsoft employees are all such fanatics that they even on Christmas day.
Office 365 = Nightmare.
Love the comments
Yesterday, over on zdnet, there was a poll to determine whether users preferred O365 or Google Docs. 82% of users preffer O365.
We considered and tested Office365....
... and went with Google Apps.
Office365 is way much expensive than Google Apps (5 times more!), requires to have MS Office 2008 installed, with 2003 you're screwed (for a small company like ours, upgrading all the MS Office park is costly), has a terrible UI (frankly, ribbons suck) and is too integrated in MS ecosystem, when more and more users are on iOS or Android.
Google Apps provides us the functionalities we needed for a fraction of the cost of Office365, is reliable, and works well with heterogeneous device. 6 months later, we are satisfied with our choice.
Our implementations of 365 have gone pretty well.
Yes you do need a minimum of Office 2007 (2008???) to get the full exchange 'experience'.
It all boils down to who you have to implement it, it's early days for the Microsoft Cloud so I guess the cowboys are on the band wagon.
But a 25gb mailbox for small businesses at £4 per-month is good, considering all the headaches and continuous support that is required for an in-house Exchange server.
If you are considering moving to 365, you need to make sure you find a team who know what they are doing.
Afterall this is just a cloud (exchange) e-mail migration which other providers have been doing for a long time but more expensive!
Honestly, say you have a 100 users. That's £400 a month. If you can't get a hosted or support-managed Exchange server cheaper than that, with Internet connectivity, then you really need to stop doing your job.
For tiny businesses, yes, but to be honest, how many of those need a remote-hosted 25Gb mailbox (something I've had for myself for the last 10+ years - it's called a dedicated server and a POP3/IMAP account). For larger businesses, no way.
Granted there are extra features beyond a mailbox but that's not what you've focused on. I guarantee you that you Office 2003 to 2007 upgrade cost you about the same "per person per month" over its lifetime than the 365 did. Except you owned the right to that forever, if you did it right, and that was REQUIRED for you to use 365 (so double the cost).
You are paying someone to run a server somewhere to handle your local network applications and email and your sharing of them with your remote employees. Your IT department should be able to do that quicker, cheaper, more securely, more compliantly (your Data Protection Officer would probably be very interested to know where your sensitive data is physically stored - i.e. which international jurisdiction) and with less reliance on third-parties.
It seems that modern IT has shifted from having a small group of local experts that are under your employ (and thus do EXACTLY what you want) to employing huge companies at enormous cost to do simple jobs badly.
This whole thread is testament to just how the concept is viewed in IT. Sure, users may have a different opinion, but it stinks of a lazy IT department if they just push everything "into the cloud" and let others take responsibility for your company's data.
Should of said £4 per-user per-month!!