[cisco-voip] Unity Connections - Why'd you do it? Would you go back to UM?

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

The advantages of Connection over Unity are quite a bit. I don't think we'd ever go back. Especially because we had to run our own domain and exchange servers. You have no option for unified messaging, but that wasn't a big deal for us since we never had it. 

We call it a unified client. ;) 




--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
"Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Kulagowski" <rkulagow at gmail.com> 
To: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 10:42:03 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: [cisco-voip] Unity Connections - Why'd you do it? Would you go back to UM? 

Thoughts from the group? We keep hearing the concern that users are 
used to having VM in their Inbox; I've countered that they can still see 
their VM messages, they'll just see it in a separate Inbox folder. From 
what I can tell, the Media Master toolbar can still be configured to 
play on the computer / play through the phone? 

Has anyone gone to Connections and back to Unity/Exchange/Unified Messaging? 

And finally, I'm I correct in calling IMAP to Connections as "Integrated 
Messaging"? 
_______________________________________________ 
cisco-voip mailing list 
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20090908/3e4e6bc3/attachment.html>