More time between flights now. When we went with shoretel, we went 100% softphone. It was fine for most local users at our main location, but not all. It was a disaster for remote users who were using VPN for voice. Call quality was all over the place. The headsets would drop off of the list of default devices, and my users could never remember how to get them working again. Help desk calls for this went through roof. The minute we ditched softphones for handsets, all my problems went away. Not having a user's (particularly a remote user's) phone tied to his computer has been very successful. On Mar 26, 2014 6:55 PM, "Richard Stovall" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ours were ShoreTel softphones. Very sketchy with the Plantronics USB > headsets we bought. > On Mar 26, 2014 6:41 PM, "Michael B. Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Would you develop that thought further? >> >> >> >> I use Lync and Skype extensively as softphones, and I’m pretty happy with >> their performance…. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Stovall >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:36 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] RE: How much to implement a Cisco telephone >> implementation >> >> >> >> Softphones are, umm, interesting. Definitely do a trial with a number of >> different types of users before going whole hog. >> >> On Mar 26, 2014 2:16 PM, "Stefan Jafs" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes strictly Outlook and Exchange, and this is also about UM, not just a >> phone system. The client for smart devices is very important and you are >> correct we do not need phones for all desks, may use Softphones on quit a >> few. We do not really care much for video and web conferencing, however we >> are planning to use the Desktop sharing. >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> >> *Stefan Jafs* >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Frank Ress >> *Sent:* March 26, 2014 12:20 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [NTSysADM] RE: How much to implement a Cisco telephone >> implementation >> >> >> >> Depends on a lot of considerations that you don’t mention. Are you an >> Outlook/Exchange shop? How much value is there in unified messaging and >> the features that go with it (e.g. voice-to-text and vice versa)? >> >> >> >> Do you even WANT desk sets? (We’re looking at the same migration, and >> intend to almost completely move to soft phones and headsets.) It’s not >> either-or, you can save a lot with soft phones, but use desk sets where >> you’d like. >> >> >> >> What about web and video conferencing? Again, that’s one of the >> attractive features to us in a Lync solution. We could do more >> self-hosting for these services. >> >> >> >> We looked at Cisco several years ago, when we first entertained our PBX >> replacement. They didn’t yet offer soft phones, and the Cisco desk sets >> were pretty expensive. I have no idea how well they’d interoperate with >> the rest of a Microsoft environment today – and I don’t know how much you >> care. >> >> >> >> We’re a fairly pure Windows/Exchange/SQL Server/Sharepoint/Office >> environment. Lync fits well. I just wish that I had a budget. >> Unfortunately, management usually perceives this as a pure voice play, and >> it’s anything but these days. >> >> >> >> Frank Ress >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Stefan Jafs >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:35 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [NTSysADM] How much to implement a Cisco telephone >> implementation >> >> >> >> We are looking at replacing our old Nortel BCM 450 for about 275 users. >> >> The shortlist is Cisco and Microsoft Lync. We are leaning towards Cisco a >> bit more expensive but also only 1 vendor (the President likes the >> “hardware” platform, even though Cisco runs with VM’s). >> >> Anyhow implementation is about $66k (Lync is about $56k), to me that >> sounds like about twice too much, has anyone have done a similar >> implementation, and / or is it a fair price? And we would do the placement >> of the phones ourselves. >> >> >> >> __________________________________ >> >> *Stefan Jafs* >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> This communication is for the use of the intended recipient only. It may >> contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the >> intended recipient of this communication, the disclosure, copying, >> distribution or use hereof is prohibited. If you have received this >> communication in error, please advise me by return e-mail or by telephone >> and then delete it immediately. >> >
