Exchange Server TechNet Library URLs updated

We’ve heard your concerns and take them seriously. We’re looking into what we can do to improve this situation for you, nothing definitive yet but be assured we’re working on it and will post an update asap.
Update 11/30/2012: Please note, ExBPA content does not have multiple versions. Content (links from the ExBPA tool) may currently display "Exchange 2013" as the version, but it's the same content the ExBPA tool linked to earlier. The CMS team is working to fix this.

Quick note to inform you that we've updated Exchange TechNet Library. Starting today, if you've bookmarked an Exchange 2010 article in the library (for example,, it'll take you to the Exchange 2013 version of the article.

Note, if an Exchange 2013 version of the article does not exist, the URL will still take you to the Exchange 2010 version.

How do I get to documentation for previous versions?

  1. Other versions menu You can still reach the Exchange 2010 version of a particular article by using the Other versions option right below the page title.

  2. Append version info You can also get to the Exchange 2010 version of a particular article by appending version information (EXCHG.141) for Exchange 2010) at the end of the URL, right before the file extension (.aspx). So the Exchange 2010 version of the above URL will be Please update your browser favorites/shortcuts and links in any blog posts if you still want them to point to the Exchange 2010 versions.

  3. Navigation tree You can use the navigation tree (on the left side of each page) to easily navigate to documentation for each Exchange Server version.

  4. Short URLs You can also get to the main documentation page for each Exchange Server version by using the following short URLs:

  5. Download help files You can also download the standalone help files in compiled HTML format (aka CHMs) from the following locations:

Bharat Suneja

11/12/2013: Post updated to show additional navigation options and links to help file downloads.

Comments (128)
  1. Team Terry says:

    Why would you do this?

    What is the logic behind punishing your techs by making them edit / update their links?

    Wouldn't it be much easier to leave the existing links, and adding a link or pop-up to the Exchange 2013 updated article.

    This is very poor support.

  2. Please change it back! says:

    Just leave the existing links they way they were and add the one specific to Exchange 2013. This is WAY too confusing now. I'm never going to remember to type in v=exchg.141 at the end of the URL.

    Is this REALLY the best way you could have handled this? Is this how other companies handle things? No.

  3. Randy Remar says:

    Yea – like that's not going to confuse the heck out of people trying to find information. Change the URLs back!

  4. M.R says:

    everything I have bookmarked is now no longer valid? why did you do this? change it back please.

  5. Don't get it??? says:

    Why does Microsoft feel that anything that we have linked to from internal training and have in our bookmarks should change to the latest version, which is not what we are running? WTH???

  6. why? says:

    I must admit, this is a very odd way of handling documentation. Basically all the old content is not going to be a pain in the ass to find unless we remember to modify the URL string on our bookmarks. Are you also going through all the Windows 7 links and replacing them with Windows 8 material too? Why keep the craziness limited to Exchange, let's just descend into total anarchy while we are at it..

  7. Mr Tops McGee says:


  8. Sean M. Loftus says:

    In the same way most other consultants and admins would track articles for the products they work on I have a favorites folder for each version of Exchange, 5.5, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010, 2013 so that I can look and see if I have pulled an article for a particular issue or process before. Why would you point everything for one version to another version, thats the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Why don't YOU put a pop up asking if we WANT the 2013 version of the article before pushing us there automatically. Its like you guys do this stuff to piss your customers off on purpose.

  9. The Exchange team has gone nutty! says:

    Why on earth would you think that breaking previous established URLs was a good idea? What nutjob at Microsoft decided on this approach? Regardless, change it back to how it was NOW. All you needed to do was put a link in to help us go to the new Exchange 2013 articles under a different URL. Why are you making this so complicated and obfuscated? You picked the WORST possible option you could have chosen to do this.

  10. Jboots says:

    I'm certainly glad everyone else had the exact same reaction as I did.  Why on Earth would you do this???  There's is virtually NEVER a time I would want to look up an old article but get sent to the new version. That is just stupid. Think about your customers Msoft, not what is easiest for you.

  11. susan says:

    ..not to mention every 2010 era blog post that links to source material is now wrong and confusing.

    Can you take the time, step back and understand the consequences of this action to every other social/support platform out there that now links to the wrong info?

  12. Mark Turner says:

    Let me just add my vote in here to revert back to the way it was and simply add the additional Ex2k13 material. I'm not looking to deploy Ex2k13 for at least another year and Ex2k10 is still fully supported. I don't want to change my links for the material I already have linked.

  13. Trevor Hansen says:

    well – my job just got a lot harder. thanks Microsoft.

  14. Bob the Idiot says:

    This makes perfectly good sense. After all, we have all replaced our 2010 environments with 2013, so why would we have any need for articles on Exchange 2010? I'm surprised Microsoft is even keeping the 2010 articles around, since we obviously have no use for them any longer.

  15. Andrew E. says:

    I'm quite surprised by this. I suspect less than 1% of companies have even migrated to Exchange 2013 yet. I still know companies that are on Exchange 2003, 2000, and one that is still running 5.5. Why are you updating and removing critical information used to support your customers when the vast majority are not on 2013 yet? 99% of your support base is NOT going to be referencing Exchange 2013 stuff yet. You are jumping the gun here and made a big mistake. Change it back, please, and include the new information separately from the Exchange 2010 stuff.

  16. confused says:

    "Note, if an Exchange 2013 version of the article does not exist, the URL will still take you to the Exchange 2010 version."

    so, we're never really sure where the information is going to be at this point. It may be in our previous linked article references, it may take us to new information that we don't want, or we have to manually change html version string info.

    Okay, who is the knucklehead that came up with this plan? This is idiotic.

  17. Yet another point of confusion. says:

    PLEASE do not break all of >OUR< documentation by changing yours. That makes no sense.

    Make a product selection link to go to the 2013 on the 2010 document so we can opt to go there, don't force us to the wrong version just because of some marketing ploy…

  18. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    Folks, thanks for all the feedback! We're looking into it. We will update this post if and when we have more to share – likely by end of next week.

    Note that this isn't the first time – it has been a practice since Exchange 2007 > Exchange 2010. This is perhaps the first time you've seen a post about it on EHLO, and it has provided us the opportunity to get your feedback.

  19. Thank Bharat! says:

    Thanks for the update.

    I have to add that this has to be the most ill-thought out plan for updating documentation I've ever seen. How many companies have deployed Exchange 2013? Maybe 1000 – at most. Yet, you've updated the documentation links that now affect 100,000+ companies still running Exchange 2010. Where is the sense in that? What a really, really, ill thought out process you came up with. Let's switch things back to what they were and come up with a better plan. Really.

  20. MM says:

    Wow. Lot's of negativity here about this change. How about just putting the Exchange 2010 articles and web links back. Then you can create new Exchange 2013-specific ones and create a link at the top of each Exchange 2010 articles stating "for more information on the changes in Exchange 13, click here". Then everyone would be happy. Changing address pointers to information that has been present for the past 3 years is going to generate a lot of negativity, especially when almost no one has moved to 13 yet.

  21. susan says:

    I couldn't figure out why I kept hitting 2010 stuff when I was googling for 2007.  Your comment that this isn't the first time you've done this, is now making sense of why when I search I'm not hitting links that I think I should be hitting.

    You may have done it before, but that didn't make it any more logical the first time.  Think of the impact to people who link – including your own Ehlo blog past posts.

  22. tony says:

    So THAT is why I had such a hard time a few years ago trying to find the 2007 reference information. You changed it. Ah-ha! I thought I was going crazy at the time, but no – you bozos changed things and that's what actually occurred. Now it makes sense.

    MS is really trying to piss people off. You need to hire someone who can do this right because you have made the exact same mistake all over again. I'm flabbergasted that this was the defacto way of updating TechNet articles (aka just overwrite the information with new information ala Fahrenheit 451 style).

  23. M.R says:

    microsoft did this before as well. please change all the exchange tech references back incl 2007. they should all be separate and not overwritten. not smart. will you change it back?

  24. Josh A. Reynolds says:

    @Bharat Suneja,

    Why would u ever think that overwrite current information links would be a good idea? What a crazy chaotic mess of method you have. And we reveal it has been going on for years now. Wow. You must like very angry admins because% not upgrading our 600 user exchange 2010sp2 setup for at least another year. It is good to know that we won't have access to any of our current linked information. Way to screw everything up. Nicely job guys. Now PLEASE change things back where was.

    Thanks >

     Josh R—–

  25. Why not - says:

    – just add the Exchange 2013 info as a new hyperlink and leave the old links as they are? Why is there a need to replace previous (And still relevant) information while making it harder for us to find things? What you should do IMO is add a hyperlink at the top of each existing article pointing to the new articles and vice-versa (a hyperlink on the new articles pointing back to the old ones).


  26. Kilroy (was here) says:

    I appreciate the efforts to consolidate everything in one place and I save most of my stuff in Evernote so this is mostly irrelevant, but same thing as the other commentators are saying. Change things back and make it all separate. You've broken valuable links that people depend on to get their jobs done and that is not cool.

  27. Josh P says:

    I agree with Team Terry. Why are you punishing your techs with changing all the links? This is very poor support. You did this before too? Shame on you all. You are making life hell for all techs.

  28. . says:

    Thank you for listening to our comments and reconsidering how you publish this information. Breaking URL reference links for such a well established and still used product such as Exchange 2010 is probably not the best idea. Glad you are taking our comments to heart.


  29. Other products? says:

    Is this just an Exchange "thing" or is Microsoft also planning on overwriting the documentation for other products like Windows 7 (replaced with Windows 8), Server 2008R2 (replaced with 2012), and SCCM 2007 (replaced with SCCM 2012)? If Microsoft is overwriting all their previous documentation and links, this is a tragic revelation indeed. Can you provide more insight into what product links are no longer valid?

  30. no says:

    I have a ex2k10 book on my shelf that has reference in to TechNet articles now no longer works. will micsft replace my books for free now? this totally bs.

  31. No good!!!!!!!!!!!!! says:

    You overwrote critical and current information links to support a newer product that hasn't even yet hit 1% penetration? Are you trying to make supporting Exchange as painful as possible?

  32. Horrible idea, please change. says:

    This is a really, really horrible idea!  I'm an MCT and I have a MS Word Doc that contains many helpful links that I distribute to my students.    So, now my document needs to be updated but what about the hundreds of students that I've already sent the doc to?  Now they have outdated information as well.    I do remember seeing the Exch07 links update to Exch2010 but did not realize that it was a common practice.  I actually thought those were simply errors.  Why would anyone think it is a good idea to do this on purpose?

  33. Yet another point of confusion. says:

    @Bharat – yes we noticed this isn't the first time you have changed documentation on us, but this is the first time you have given us the opportunity to voice our frustration on this action in a single location.

    No that you are, but please don't take the approach of "you didn't complain last time" because if you had made a post such as this the last time we certainly would have.

    And just to be clear, we are asking that you NOT change the topic of your published articles (Exchange 2013 versus Exchange 2010) any more than you would a technet artcile, white paper, or even published book. Revisions, tweaks, clarifications are fine and encouraged, but changing the source topic on a published artcile is like trying to change the Exchange version in a book you have already published and people have purchased. You wouldn't do it in that case, so why do it in all of the other cases where people use the electronic published versions of data?

    Links to new product version articles in existing articles = yes, changing existing articles to be the new product version and then providing a new link to the older data = no.

  34. E Mickelson says:

    Same thing everyone else is saying……..change it back so our documentation works. We aren't even thinking about deploying 2013 yet and need the links to remain as they were.

  35. Just overwriting current links says:

    is a matter of practice at Microsoft? I don't even know where to begin on the stupidity involved. Does Microsoft not find it troublesome for internal reference, let alone customer reference to do this? How come no one saw how poor of an idea this all was before now?

  36. Brilliant! says:

    Brilliant I say! Let's keep those admins on their toes. As a sadomasachist, I completely agree that erasing linked data and replacing it with different information is the way to go. I love the pain and so will all the other admins out there. If they complain, they are wusses. I say go for it! Full speed ahead. Let us erase all the data on ALL the linked MS articles and replace it with different data. Love the pain. Be the pain. If it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. Way to go MS!!! You guys (and gals) totally rock!

  37. This sucks! says:

    That's all I can say about it. This sucks!

  38. mike h says:

    Amen to all the other comments here – this is a poor practice.  Perhaps it wasn't a bigger issue during the 2007 -> 2010 transition because a lot of people skipped 2007 and went from 2003 directly to 2010?  I would say at this point the majority of people are on 2010 and not 2013, why alienate your audience?

  39. Can we have the same feature on our e-mail as well? says:

    In other words, when we get a new e-mail in our inbox can you implement a feature that will just overwrite the previous e-mail from that user. That way not only will we have this awesome new experience when searching for TechNet articles to solve problems, but we'll also have the great experience within our Outlook clients as well? If you could also port this new feature over to Word too, that would be fantastic. I can't wait to tell all my end users that their pesky docx files will simply be overwritten each and every time they create a new document.

    Oh, the fun we'll all have!

    Seriously, though. The idea, as countless others have pointed out, sucks royally. Please change things back to the way they worked and not this broken hodge-podge mess you've created.

  40. Jb VERNEJOUX says:


    Impacts of this massive Weblink changes : URLs in ExBPA's tool reports are broken ?

    I recently noticed that web links (used for redirect to fix errors/warning/info entries)  included in reports of any "Exchange 2010 SP2 Best practice Analyzer" tools are now BROKEN (ie HTTP 404).

    To me, the behavior is compatible with your massive changes of links in Exchange documentation.

  41. Tony Redmond says:

    Lots of people agree with the views expressed in…/exchange-technet-update-unwelcome-unwanted-144781 and…/exchange-technet-library-urls-updated-but-why. I have received massive feedback on this topic and none of it is positive towards the stance taken by Microsoft. Please revert to the previous situation and allow people to choose the information they get from the Internet rather than forcing Exchange 2013 down their throats.

  42. danny says:

    Well this is a fine kettle of fish you've gotten us all in. Now my Exchange v10 BPA links are broken. Sounds like more than Steven Sinofsky should have been fired at Microsoft.

  43. why? says:

    why does microshaft insist on changing everything? we all hate win8. now you change support links exchange too?  you hate us. why do you hate us? we want to do our jobs and you make things a problem

  44. Team Terry says:

    Gee Bharat, you added more information about how WE can change our process to access info that was previously working perfectly. This decision shows Microsoft is just as arrogant as Apple. Remember the famous 'YOU are holding it wrong' in reference to antennae issue with the iPhone. Sometimes the customer is RIGHT.

    Please just accept that you guys made the wrong decision. We all make wrong decisions, but it is how we act on those wrong decisions that we are judged.

    Just roll back the old links and include a link to the same info for Exchange 2013. Keep your techs happy.

    We are the ones that guide Management decisions that can result in Microsoft's bottom line.

    We are the ones that have to suffer the nightmare of supporting Vista / Windows 8 in an Enterprise environment.

    Please make our life just that little bit easier.

    Please… just roll back the links.

    I think you can see by the 42 negative comments here, this is NOT a popular move.

  45. "We're looking into it"? Just undo it.

  46. Smokem if you Got'em says:

    Is this the fall out from legalizing Marijuna in Washington?  "Dude, where's my link?" LOL

  47. Gooooo! says:

    I like it.  It was painful to find a link to e2007 when I'm looking for the e2010 version.  This will be great in the long run.  

  48. Frank says:

    Unbelievable. 99% of the existing customers can't migrate to Exchange 2013 yet because co-existence is not ready yet, but you force us to the new version of the documentation. What's the point to that?

  49. All Brains and No Common Sense says:

    Tony Redmond has described the reasons why this is a PR disaster.  It's an example of techies "in too deep" and not taking a step back to look at the big picture of what they're presenting.  It's simply astonishing that intelligent people in this team didn't sit down and ask "what's this change going to be like in real life to use?" A classic example of all brains and no common sense.  

  50. Another Negative Comment says:

    Please, please, please change it back. Then decide the best way forward. Even when I search for Exchange 2010 articles and it returns a list (this is in your search engine on your technet site), it then opens the 2013 pages. Insane!

  51. ThommyG says:

    Something's defintely going wrong in this company…

  52. Guys and Gals - the solution is easy... says:

    …just reverse the changes. Just put everything back to the way you had it before. All links will work correctly again. Then, create new links to the new content. Why is this so hard? Why is this taking a month?

    Telling us you are looking into ways to improve things and will post an update is crap. We don't want it "improved". We want it "fixed". You obviously ARE NOT taking this "seriously" enough. You've caused a complete disaster – now fix it!

  53. Please undo this travesty! says:

    Please, oh please, change things back. This is horrendous. We don't want to change the way we were working just to make things easier for Microsoft. You need to change YOUR methods to make things easier for us.

    Stop changing things!!!!!!!!

  54. this is a pain in the ass says:

    I tried it and I don't like it. How many comments do you need before you realize that you've made mistake? are you all that thick-skulled at ms to not see the stupidity of what you've done? seriously move the links back

  55. To quote Home Simpson says:


    From these comments, it certainly appears you've made a big, huge whoppin' mistake. We don't want the HTTP location addresses to change. If you were nice you'd undo the change and make it all easier on us. If you were mean, you'd keep it the way it is.

    If you choose the undo path, then may blessings reign down on you from heaven.

    If you choose the mean path, then may a pox infect you and your favorite pet

    Choose wisely.

  56. Team Terry says:

    So Bharat… it has been over two weeks since you took our concerns seriously.

    When can we expect the rollback so that our links work as they used to ?

  57. Donald Brown says:

    So what's the status?  As of right now, everything in my Exchange notes and my students notes are broken all over the place. What a disaster this has been. How are you going to be improving this situation? Or are you just going to ignore all the feedback, keep doing it the way you're currently doing it, and hope that it just blows on by?

  58. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @Team Terry, @Donal Brown: This is being accorded the high priority it deserves based on the feedback here. Constrained about the timing due to stakeholder absence immediately followed by Thanksgiving holiday in the U.S. I will update the post as soon as we have more to share.

  59. No offense but - says:

    1. Whom is the stakeholder that caused this problem in the first place? We want to know whom to attack with our torches and pitchforks.

    2. Is it really this difficult to get anything done at Microsoft? It's been 3 weeks now since people have stated complaining and we're STILL waiting on some stakeholder to figure out a solution? At this rate we'll be into next year before the hyperlinks are reverted back.

  60. MNR says:

    One more vote to change the links back to where they were and create brand new links for the new content. Thank you.

  61. Richard Irwin says:

    What is the status on getting this resolved? Why are things taking so long? We're suffering here. Does Microsoft just not care? WTF?

  62. says:

    Add another vote to that as well. This is just nuts!

  63. What is the status? says:

    Thanksgiving was a week ago. It's now another week with no fix. Is your stakeholder going to finally get off their butt and provide a solution here? What is the holdup now?

  64. Greg Goodman says:

    All my BPA links are now pointing to Exchange 2013 articles this is ridiculous! When will this be fixed?

  65. Update? says:

    Where's the update? When can we expect the rollback? I'm losing confidence in Microsoft as of late. First, the whole Metro garbage being forced on us. Now, you're forcing content changes on us as well for critical support information.

  66. will says:


    Any update on a fix yet? When I go to the toolbox and launch the Best Practice Analyzer for Exchange 2010, it seems to only send me to the Exchange 2013 versions of the articles now. I don't even see an option to select the Exchange 2010 version of the article. That makes little sense. First, because I'm not running Exchange 2013 – and can't even consider it until SP3 is released. Second, the vast majority of Exchange systems are on 2003, 2007, and 2010. I'll bet less than a few percentage points of companies are currently on Exchange 2013 – so why update the content that breaks links for 95%+ of the administrators of these systems?

    It's like you have gotten your priorities backwards. You shouldn't be trying to shove Exchange 2013 down our throats yet. Instead, you should be continuing to help support us on our CURRENT deployments of previous versions of Exchange. What's going on in Redmond? Are you smoking the wacky tobaccy or something? Would you change things back asap.

  67. ??? says:

    What will the "stakeholder" do to fix this complete mess they have created? Any news?

    Imagine if your internal Microsoft programmers suddenly had all of their .NET libraries suddenly change to Visual Studio 2012 references. Think how utterly pissed off they would be and what a complete S%$#-storm would ensue. That's basically what you've done here with all of your Exchange admins.

  68. Anonymous says:



  69. status says:

    still seeing ex2k13 links rather than my ex2k10 links.

    will this ever be fixed?

  70. Name says:

    This is perfect! My company of around 2000 users absolutely loves Exchange 2013 and all the hyperlink references now updated have really made a difference in our troubleshooting efforts. This all makes sense and helps benefit the Exchange community all around!

    Oh. Wait. My mistake. Scratch that. We haven't moved to Exchange 2013 yet just like all the other companies out there. All the link references changed are making our lives a living admin hell. This update makes no sense and doesn't benefit the Exchange community.

    Nobody can move to Exchange 2013 until Service Pack 3 is released, yet the Exchange team at Microsoft has  updated all the links. Nice job guys. Now fire someone and let's get back to where we were a month ago.

  71. E2013 says:

    'Update 11/30/2011:  Please note, ExBPA content does not have multiple versions.. ..the CMS team is working to fix this.' – Does this mean that for sure the links will NOT be rolled back?

  72. You're not rolling the links back? says:

    You said you would take this seriously. I see Microsoft lies again.

  73. Why oh why says:

    Now, even Googling something like "reseed database copy exchange 2010" pulls up Exchange 2013 TechNet! ANNOYING!!!!  All my links are broken taking me to Exchange 2013! This was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen! When we want to move our clients to 2013 we will! The same with Windows 8 (as if that would ever happen!) Why not leave things alone and instead of trying to make your jobs easier and making everyone else's a nightmare, take the time to create NEW article numbers for NEW versions of your software!

  74. AnnoyedAdmin says:

    You should use bing if you want proper results without getting scroogled (

    OK – bad joke…

  75. What's going on? says:

    Are you going to change it back or not? Bharat, please give us a straight answer here. You appear to be dodging the issue now.

  76. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @What's going on?: We do not have a confirmation whether and when we'll be able to switch back. We do hope to have an answer soon. Also see the update on ExBPA links in post updates.

  77. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @E2013: >>Does this mean that for sure the links will NOT be rolled back?

    No, it's simply a clarification to let you know you're getting the right content for ExBPA links.

  78. You don't have confirmation? What? says:

    There are 77 comments to this blog, Almost all of them decidedly negative toward the http updates. Weeks have gone by with everything from the BPA, to Google searches, to even internal Microsoft-provided references failing to display the correct content. You've REALLY blown it with these changes.

    So, are you going to update the links or not? If so, then when are you going to implement the change? Stop dragging your feet and put things back to where they worked.

  79. Mr Aaron M. says:

    @Bharat Suneja –

    So you're still not sure whether you are going to get "confirmation" to switch back. To whom can we contact that has the authority to authorize the switchback? As others have stated, this insanity has gone on too long already. Seriously, fire someone!

    Nothing is pulling up correctly now. You've managed to break everything that used to work. I don't want to see Exchange 2013 references at all. This is a complete pain in the ass now and is very poor support

  80. Andrew says:

    A good option may be (if it hasn't been suggested already), is to store the version users last looked at in a cookie, so new users will see 2013 content, but when they change it to 2010 it will stay 2010 until they change it back to 2013 (or clear their browser cookies)

  81. Sucks and blows! says:

    This sucks and blows!

  82. TT says:

    I was wondering why my Google links have been broken for the past few weeks…

    …and now I find out why. Thanks Microsoft for making my life harder. Sounds like we need to take a serious look at Google's offerings for our next cloud-based move.

  83. I feel like puking says:


  84. Undo things says:

    Please update the links to their previous locations and add new and separated links for 2013. Undo these updates. These are not good because it is difficult to locate correct information now and confuses

  85. Smithy, M. R. says:

    When I search my current documentation, go to Bing, and/or run my Toolbox BPA I want it to go to the EXACT SAME PLACE IT ALWAYS HAS. What was Microsoft thinking changing these links? This is not a good change.

    Add my voice as one who hates the update and wants everything back. I don't want to have to choose a drop down as an extra step to get to the information I require to do my job.

  86. The King of All the Land says:

    Why does Microsoft feel that everything we have hyperlinked and organized can just be changed at a whim? Holy cow, even the google and bing references now all point to 2013 even if you are searching for 2010. This is completely FUBAR at the moment.

  87. John" none of your business what my last name is" says:

    This is awful. Microsoft has heard our concerns and are "taking them seriously"? No you are not. You are not taking them seriously. This fiasco has been going on for weeks now and Microsoft seems hell-bent on continuing to have the Exchange 2013 stuff pull up in place of 2010 ones.

    I am going to go down to Microsofts Redmond campus and replace all of Visual Studio NET documentation with the newer Jupiter and HTML5 documentation. I will make that the standard. How well do you think that would go over? I'll tell you that it would go over like a ton of bricks. It would be a complete bomb. That is the same thing you have done here to us, your admins. Please reconsider what you've done and reverse the updates. Every comment on this blog is negative. Why can you not see that you have made an error?

  88. Margaret says:


    I don't like this method. I want it just show the article as it has always done without all the extra fuss.

  89. T.T. says:

    I do hope you rethink this strategy. I was troubleshooting an issue today and got stuck for almost 30 minutes running down the wrong path because it was referencing Exchange 2013 links. Not cool.

  90. Okay says:

    What is the status? It's been a month now. Can we stop this madness and just change it back now? This is stupid. Is this going to continue to be stupid forever?

  91. Andrew Carrigan says:

    Put the URL links back. Thank you.

  92. Jujubee says:

    Seeing as how Exchange 2010 Service Pack 3 won't be available until the first half of next year, and there is no status on if/when Exchange 2007 integration will be supported…how could you possibly update the links to Exchange 2013 at this time? We can't install Exchange 2013 in our organization even if we wanted to. I suspect only a handful of companies have moved to Exchange 2013 because of this requirement. Changing the links to Exchange 2013 makes little sense in this context.

    How about if Microsoft changes the links back until at least Service Pack 3 is released. Would that be a good compromise here? When can we expect a solution?

  93. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @Jujube: Thanks for the feedback. The team is reviewing all options, including your suggestion.

  94. ANGELA says:

    This is a painful change. Please re-consider.

  95. Update? says:


    Is it ever going to get changed back, or do we all just need to suffer and complain every single time we try to find an Exchange 2010 reference from now on?

  96. Hello? says:

    Anyone home? Is Microsoft going to reconsider the updates or not? Every single time I search for an Exchange 2010 article in Google/Bing it pulls up the worthless Exchange 2013 version. Sometimes I don't even have the option to switch to a previous version and have to go back to the search engine and find a correct link.

    Guys, gals, whomever is listening at Microsoft, you've made this a total pain. I really hope you revert the links back. This isn't working.

  97. terry says:

    I hate this. Is it ever going to be changed back? I search for something on Bing and the top 5 results always come back with 2013, not 2010 (which is what I was searching for). This really, really lame guys.

  98. Extremely_Frustrated says:

    I really thought I was the one pounding on my desk every time i landed on the wrong version.  This is lunacy.  Please be respectful of the Admins who support your product every day and fix these links TODAY.  Our systems don't magically turn into 2013 systems with a puff of smoke so why would you do the same to our documentation!!!!

  99. Dan Sheehan says:

    Yet another reason you should not mess with Technet articles – In our DR procedures documentation we referenced the Datacenter Switchover article for Exchange 2010 with this link:…/dd351049.aspx

    However with your update, you effectively broke that link altogether, because it goes a page that says "This Topic Is No Longer Available", presumably because there isn’t an Exchange 2013 version yet.

    I had to search Technet and eventually found what you all did to the link:…/dd351049(v=exchg.141).aspx

    Why the original link wouldn’t at least point ot the new link with the added (v=exchg.141) text is beyond me.

    This is also not the first link I tried that is now completely broken:…/dd298067.aspx…/dd876950.aspx…/dd979810.aspx

    These 4 dead links are just from my Exchange 2010 DR procedure documentation, and I have links in other documents that you broke with this "update".

    PLEASE do not try and recycle existing TechNet URLs, you are doing more than just making people land on the wrong version of Exchange. Instead please just add the link/pulldown/whatever to the new software version of the page.

  100. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @Dan Sheehan: Thanks for catching that – the correct version identifier is
    , as shown below. This should get you to the Exchange 2010 topic even if the 2013 version does not exist.

  101. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @Terry: This may help: Add the following to your search keywords on Bing or Google. (You can also refine further by adding the complete path (with locale, for example:
    en-us for US English):
    ). For the topics that I’ve tested, this returns both versions in the top search results.

    Here’s an example – searching for Exchange 2010 Recoverable Items topics.

  102. Gigi says:

    I'm really not getting this. Microsfot decided to change all the url pointers to go to new content instead of the old content – breaking all the old content references. Expect, wait, it doesn't work all the time – in fact, it appears to be broken half the time. Then if we can't find it on the first try, we have to remember to add a (exchg.141) tag onto the end of the hyperlink. But that doesn't even work, so now we have to search everything with a "site:technet…" prepended to it?

    This has to be the craziest most inefficient and confusing method I've ever heard of in my life. You must really not like your Exchange admins to have do this to them.

    How about just putting everything back the way it was and creating new content links for the new content? Why are you making this the most difficult process you can?

  103. Team Terry says:

    Hey guys, it looks like you are simply ignoring our requests in the hope this goes away.

    Are you actually taking this seriously?

    It has now been over six weeks since you broke your own links and documentation. All our blogs and DR procedures are effectively useless.


    Yes.. I am shouting… I would expect crappy support like this from an open source product, not from world leading Microsoft.

    You guys are becoming a joke.

    If you haven't realised, we are becoming pissed.

  104. Dan Sheehan says:

    @Bharat – I think you are missing the point. While we can go back to our documentation and update them all to include "(EXCHG.141)", we shouldn't have to just so they work. It's bad enough the old links were change to 2013 which makes all of our documention incorrect, you flat out broke some URLs altogether which is really not forgiveable.

    Please go back and put things back the way they were, and use the 2010 pages to link to the 2013 pages in the pull down in case someone wants to see that version's writeup. That way you unbreak all of the links that don't currently have a 2013 counterpart such as the ones I pointed out.

  105. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @Dan Sheehan: Not missing the point. The team will provide an update when a decision is made.

    Meanwhile, I'm simply suggesting ways to work around this issue, including adding (EXCHG.141) to the URL and specifying the site in web searches.

  106. what is the decision? says:

    Has Microsoft come to a decision yet? This has gone on for 6 weeks now. Last we heard it was the week after Thanksgiving and the stakeholder was getting ready to meet with everyone over this. It's been 3 weeks since then with no update.

    Bharat, just tell us straight up whether and when this is going to be fixed. You've had PLENTY of time now to make a decision and figure out what you are going to do. sThank you.

  107. POA says:

    @Team Terry: With you. Their Hope is: Getting away with it.

    Another pissed off admin.

  108. susan says:

    It appears to me that Microsoft is ignoring our requests to change things back. Mr Bharat keeps telling us they are still trying to make a decision, but they have been "making a decision" on this since before Thanksgiving. When are we going to see the links put back?

  109. Nino Bilic says:

    @Susan, POA, and others:

    Whether we change this back or not, we are highly likely to blog about it again and discuss some of the reasoning behind it all; how come, why, why it happened when it did and so on. I understand exactly where you are coming from, having seen no significant updates on this, however – suffice it to say that things are usually more complex than it meets the eye, and there are multiple things to consider. I wish it was as simple as a press of the "undo" button and no ramifications to content discoverability – alas – that is not necessarily so. The timing of all this with lots of people being OOF does not help expedite anything either.

    Long story short: we are in fact still working on this. Do keep telling us what you like or not! I can assure you that if your feedback was not loud and clear, this would have long ago been "dropped" (as sometimes, you get one-off feedback that is not really clear or actionable).

    Thank you!

  110. susan says:

    Stop "working on this" and just fix it. You are smart people. You don't need months to figure this out. If it breaks the Exchange 2013 links then so be it. Only a handful of companies are even running Exchange 2013 at the moment. Let's fix the issue for what 99% of people are running (Exchange 2007 and 2010) and not worry about the 1% of people any "undo" would affect. As the old saying goes, you are stepping over the dollars to pick up and worry about the pennies. I'm tired of continually having to play "hunt the right link" with my Exchange 2010 documents now.

  111. M. Miner says:

    Agree with Susan. Just break the current links to Exchange 2013 and change them back to point to Exchange 2010. Everything was working fine until Microsoft screwed them up. Thank you.

  112. TeamTerry says:

    Can you please provide an update Bharat.

    No current feedback just makes things look worse.

  113. Chuck @EMC says:

    This is horrible and should be reverted back immediately.

  114. It’s basically invalidated a good chunk of my OneNote Notebooks.

    Example: I do a Bing search for “selection of inbound starttls certificates” and the result that is given for 2010 goes to a “This topic is no longer available” page (…/bb430748(en-us).aspx).
    However, if I click the Exchange 2007 article for the same topic also one of the top search results in Bing) I get the proper page (…/bb430748(v=EXCHG.80).aspx)
    for 2007 with the option to go to the other version via the drop-down at the top & finally get to my destination.

    I understand the workaround is basically to add something like “(v=exchg.141)” to the URL but it’s really frustrating when I’m knee deep in an issue & I need to reference something only to spend forever trying to find a page I’ve always referenced easily

    Anyways, I doubt it’ll get changed and who knows who owns this but it’s a giant pain in searching as well as saved links in things like OneNote.

  115. says:

    All the BPA reference links appear to be broken in 2007 and 2010. Suffixing the URL with "(EXCHG.141)" still pulls up only the Exchange 2013 of every article and there is no drop-down option presented to select. Google and Bing links are also not working. Books. Magazine, and blog references now do not work. A number of links come up with "This topic is no longer available" now. There is not a single positive thing I can say about this "update". Across the board…everything is now somewhat broken in some fashion.

    Please, Microsoft, undo this change. We need it changed back ASAP.

  116. Frank says:

    Unbelievable that even after two months nothing has changed. Make me wonder and we aren't the only ones complaining:…/exchange-technet-update-unwelcome-unwanted-144781

  117. Greg Harmon says:

    Updates? Anyone going to update this forum? This has to be the worst. Every note I have appears to not work right at this time. I updated some of them with the versioning information as posted in this blog, but that mostly resulted in cannot find content or it displayed the wrong content. The Exchange team has simply gone bonkers with this decision.

  118. IgnoredAdmin says:

    Don't know if the stakeholders are still absent, but pretty soon there will be another Thanksgiving…

  119. aaron says:

    "We’ve heard your concerns and take them seriously."

    I call B.S. It's been 3 months now, you've broken all the links, and you fail to communicate. In other words, complete fail here. You really expect us to believe you are taking things seriously?

  120. crickets says:

    the silence is deafening. the stakeholders appear to be worthless management types who cannot actually do their jobs.

  121. Greg E Goodman says:

    Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

  122. Amy Reese says:

    Thank you to the Exchange team who posts these blog entries and always tries to provide the current and detailed information we need. That said, I am having a much more difficult time now locating the technical documents I need. Bing searches do not appear to link to the correct content anymore. Even searching TechNet directly results in a number of "article not found" errors. Following the advice above in this blog does not appear to help. Adding the (EXCHG.141).aspx onto the http does not pull up a 2010 doc and continues to display a 2013 doc. Is there a better search engine we can use that will help us find the correct information? The changes you made, although with the best of intentions I am sure, do not appear to be working.

  123. Angry says:

    It is 2 months after things got "serious" around here and we were promised an update was coming "asap".

  124. Baphomet says:

    I think the Exchange team has abandoned this topic. Anyone have any update as to when/if the HTTP links will revert back to the stable state they were 3 months ago or are we going to have to live with it the way it is now?

  125. IgnoredAdmin says:

    Well, you don't have to live with it. Use NOTES, Groupwise or Fedora instead :)

  126. what is this? says:

    This is a joke, right? You change the hyperlinks breaking nearly everything that references those hyperlinks. Then, you add really dorky manual processes to deal with the problem that was introduced. You then blame the stakeholders. Now, you simply don't respond to comments or updates.

    Bravo, Exchange team. Well played.

  127. Leave a comment says:

    Microsoft is all talk about talking things seriously, but they appear to be just that, all talk and no action here.

    This thread appears to have been abandoned, even though there are daily comments to please fix the issue.

    Wonder how much those "stakeholders" make that are holding up this process of returning the links back to where they actually worked.

    Maybe that's the new Microsoft Exchange methodology, to just break things and run away, rather than actually deal with the issue and solve the problem.

    As others have posted here, updating the HTTP:\ to contain the 141 version doesn't work.

    It doesn't work from Google. It doesn't work from Bing. it doesn't even work from TechNet itself.

    This is very poor support and is confusing people.

  128. microsoft says:

    Have pity on us. We are Microsoft. Changing anything around here takes at LEAST 6 months due to our overhead and bureaucracy. Yes, we know you can't find what you are looking for and it is a royal pain in the keister, but trying to get anything at all approved through our total mess of bureaucracy is equivalent to winning the lottery ticket.

    Have patience, dear admins, by the end of this year we'll be able to post another update to this thread telling you how we are continuing to look into and fix the situation. Maybe. Sometime down the road. When the next version of Exchange launches. Then we'll have everything right again.

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content