> We are looking at four new 24 port switches for our network. We have Cisco
> and HP as our final contenders. Both the HP Procurve and the Cisco
> Catalyst carry similar specs, but the HP is about 20% of the cost of the
> Cisco. Can someone give me a REAL reason why the Cisco Catalyst would be a
> better choice. Our network is all 10/100 for now and we won't need Gigabit
> for at least a couple of years. We need these switches to be in 24 port
> configurations as the company is going to split in two in a couple of months
> and move half of the operations to another building, so we need to be able
> to split the network as needed. I know this is a Cisco group, which is why
> I am asking it here, because I want a BIASED opinion of why Cisco would be
> better in this situation. Thank you all for your suggestions.
I run a network that has a mix of Catalyst and ProCurve switches in it. I
use the ProCurve stuff quite a bit for desktop/local wiring closet
connections.
Frankly, it's really nice hardware, and I love it. Config is accomplished
through a menu-based interface, which is kind of a pain in the butt when
you're trying to do a lot of config in a short time, but you can also tftp
config files into the switches. I greatly prefer the command line.
The ProCurve hardware supports virtual stacking/clustering, CoS, etc.
The ProCurve hardware also carries a lifetime warranty. You let the magic
smoke out of a switch, and they'll send you a new one.
The Catalyst stuff has a lot more flexibility with respect to config,
which shouldn't surprise you much. Some of the Catalyst stuff also has an
upgrade path to allow you to do inline power to the ports for IP phones,
if that's something you want to look at later on.
Ben
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
