Three points: - Please substantiate your allegation that HP support for networking is somehow inferior because you're not paying for an expensive support contact. (I've spoken to quite a few techs from both organizations)
- I mentioned that Cisco had more failures *percentage-wise*. I did not make the comparison on sheer number of incidents, as that would have been skewed by market share. - Please provide me a use-case where a Cisco switch is proven to provide some functionality that an HP ProCurve cannot accomplish without incurring costs our complexity that negate the cost differential. You've already agreed with the equality of quality. These are all part of the value proposition. -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker Sent from my Motorola Droid On Sep 16, 2010 4:49 PM, "Rohyans, Aaron" <[email protected]> wrote: I think you’re missing my point here… though I may not be clear enough. My point is one of support *value*, rather than support *cost*. Is HP cheaper than Cisco when it comes to support? … yes, hands down. Does HP provide the same level of support from a value perspective as Cisco? … I would have to say no. Again, *you get what you pay for*. You’re not paying for high value support… thus, HP will gladly throw new equipment your way and let you talk to a low-end tech all day long if it’ll make you happy. It’s worth it to them. Cisco, on the other hand, takes a different approach… you pay for support, but have access to a large pool of technical resources when things go awry… even access to the developers themselves. Keep in mind also that Cisco offers one of the best online documentation systems of any manufacturer in the world… becoming familiar with Cisco products is not hard… and it’s free. As to the price difference… we could argue features all day long… but how do you define “comparable” switches? Yes, both are Ethernet switches and both operate at 10/100/1000Gb… and if that’s all you’re after, then you shouldn’t be looking at Cisco. Cisco offers some of the most granular and technologically advanced features in their product lineup… “comparing” these two switches requires a baseline for comparison. To some, Cisco’s “cheap” in terms of what you get for the cost. To others they’re ungodly expensive, but those “others” typically aren’t concerned with the added features that you get with Cisco… thus HP makes the most sense, or any other vendor for that matter. HP is probably lower in overall device failures… but they have less than 20% of the switching market share. Compared to Cisco’s 70%, that would make sense. *I’m not arguing the “quality” of HP/Cisco switches here*. You’re right, both are rock solid! Aaron T. Rohyans Senior Network Engineer CCIE #21945 DPSciences Corporation 7400 N. Shadeland... *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Thursday, September 16, 2010 4:04 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Switch opinions >>It’s a lame attempt to acquire market share by offering free support on the product line. ..... ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.c... ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
