I know Foundry does a few...
-Eddie
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Chuck Larrieu
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 12:32 PM
To: Petra Hofmann; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches]
Anyone know who OEM's for HP? Long ago is was Kalpana.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Petra Hofmann
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RE: Cisco vs. HP Switches]
Sure I can give you several. 1. Much easier to configure both with a
console
or Web interface. The Web interface is much more intuitive. 2. Setting up
port trunking was easier with HP. I have 3 HP 2424M's which I chose of
Cisco
even though we have several Cisco 2500's. The only problem I had installing
the HP was that one of their serial cables was bad and caused a
configuration
problem. Two of my HP's have run powered for 8 months without the first
problem. From my experience there is no reason I would pay %20 more for
Cisco. I should add that HP's tech support on the cable issue was as good
as
I've ever got with anyone if not better.
Petra Lynn Hofmann, CCNA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sure I know a reason; HP.
> Really, can you give a reason why you would take HP over Cisco other than
price.
> Grant you 20% is a great deal of money. But do you get IOS?
>
> Just a few thoughts.
> Have a good one.
>
> Chuck Collins
> CCNP
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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.
>
> Denis
>
>
> Denis A. Baldwin
> Network Administrator - CAE, Inc.
> A+, MCP, i-Net+, Network+
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 810-231-9373, ext. 229
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
