I wouldn't mind Cisco's site as much if they would, #1 - Quit moving stuff around.
#2 - Quit renaming their products every other month. #3 - Put the links that you are going to use most often (like updates and patches) out in front and easy to find. The 2 biggest gripes I have about HP is, #1 - It's sloooooooooooow. #2 - Sometimes it's even slower. -Paul From: Richard Stovall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 6:57 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Cisco servers? 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/> ~
