I miss the Compaq site. On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Richard Stovall <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cisco's site is so uniformly bad that it would take some obscenely good / > unique features combined with extraordinary pricing to get me > to seriously consider their server offering. I wonder if they know just how > awful it is... > > Heck, I can barely tolerate HP's site, and Cisco's is an order of magnitude > worse. (IMHO) > > RS > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Barsodi.John <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Yeah Cisco's site is horrible. >> >> We use many of the Cisco products for UC, connectivity, etc too. I'd >> agree their stuff is all over the place. However, the UCS blades are >> different in the sense of initial design. The memory consolidation tech >> they developed is huge and single pane of management across multiple >> chassis. >> >> Thanks, >> JB >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:20 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Cisco servers? >> >> If you say so. I spent about 30 minutes on the page you sent the link to >> and saw nothing saying 32 or 64-bit, other than a reference to x86 >> architecture. I'm only picking on Cisco slightly since we use their software >> for VOIP and other communication purposes as well as VPN and ACS and I can >> tell you that almost none of their software is yet 64-bit capable so with >> nothing on the site stating that UCS is 64-bit my assumption with all things >> Cisco is that it is not capable until proven otherwise. >> Tim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:12 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Cisco servers? >> >> Mmm, UCS is Nehalem only, perhaps you've heard of it? I think they've got >> the x64 thing figured out.... >> >> Not saying it's the right solution for everyone, or even most SMB's, but >> their product does have a fit. >> >> I think in this day and age of cost cutting IT budgets are taking you have >> to look at alternatives to everything and evaluate them. If you are looking >> to deploy a large new vSphere environment, the Cisco UCS blades might be a >> great fit. If you need to grow and constrict your environment dynamically >> Cisco UCS would be a good fit. >> >> Thanks, >> JB >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tim Vander Kooi [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 2:45 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Cisco servers? >> >> Perhaps one of these days Cisco will figure out that 64-bit computing has >> in fact arrived. At that time they might have some legitimate claim to >> belong in the server space. Until then, they really don't. >> Personally, I would much rather buy an EqualLogic SAN with a PowerConnect >> shoved in the back, or a LeftHand SAN with a ProCurve built in; than a Cisco >> switch with God-knows what kind of server hardware hung off the front of it. >> JMO, >> Tim >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 4:35 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Cisco servers? >> >> Does that mean you have to use IE5 with the version of Java that shipped >> with Windows 2000 for the PDM type management interface, like you have to do >> with PIX PDM ??? >> >> >> >> Erik Goldoff >> IT Consultant >> Systems, Networks, & Security >> >> ' Security is an ongoing process, not a one time event ! ' >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barsodi.John [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:22 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Cisco servers? >> >> Is this a surprise? Got a demo of them a few weeks back, they are sweet >> and would work well in elastic environments. The management looks like the >> Cisco PDM from 2004. The hardware scalability is really attractive. Read up >> on what they've done with their memory optimization. >> >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns944/ >> >> Thanks, >> JB >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Phil Brutsche [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 1:57 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: Re: Cisco servers? >> >> I got that information from a Cisco reseller. >> >> The IBM servers they are selling are purely for the UCM VoIP stuff. Even >> then, that much may be temporary. >> >> Raper, Jonathan - Eagle wrote: >> > Hey Phil - care to reveal your source on that? The only thing I've >> > found is from a Cisco blog where some Cisco employee flatly states >> > that Cisco's servers are truly Cisco, and not manufactured by either >> > HP or IBM... >> >> -- >> >> Phil Brutsche >> [email protected] >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < >> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < >> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < >> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < >> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < >> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ < >> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
