Quote Originally Posted by bhrt60 View Post
...tried to move a couple of users to Vibe but its overly complicated to use as several clients put it
IMO Vibe is not overly complicated, it does however require a very different mindset for those accustom to the "explorer" methodology.

It also requires some time to find the right layout in workspaces, folders and landing pages (depending on how Vibe is used). Trying to using Vibe "out of the box" without someone behind it that understands what it's about, usually is not very successful from what I've seen. That same rule applies to Sharepoint IMO.

Quote Originally Posted by bhrt60 View Post
...I have a new client with Windows 2003 & about 900Gb data in a very simple but haphazard file system folder structure for which GW DMS would be ideal but I don't think we should suggest it! Largest DMS is less than 200Gb so I'm not sure how DMS would perform anyway!

File Structure is Project based with fairly complex structure (over time this has become haphazard)
At the moment almost everything is available to everyone but going forward need to restrict access to information
on filesystem setup this would be a admin nightmare !

Vibe would allow copies of emails to be stored within a Project structure - which may make the data even larger over time

we are talking about 50 users currently.
Starting with 900Gb I would think we need to allow for 3Tb data
Vibe can scale well but might require some tuning.

What are the customers requirements exactly? For example, is file versioning a requirement?

With that current file structure (and workflow) in place, have you also looked at Novell Filr? As you can implement that with indexing and other mobility options while leaving the dataset in it's place. At this time, Filr does not yet handle versioning.

Vibe also has the option to offer and index the maintaining the current document location (using the mirrored folder option), but that's more limited vs what Filr can do in such a scenario.

Knowing more about the what the customer is planning and sees as requirements would be good.

Any idea what the plans are for that 2003 server, as that version is close to EOL?