--- John Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 6,
> I wouldn't be so quick to say that. A lot of companies
> want/need
> the best, i.e. Cisco gear, but their budgets are somewhat tight.
> Cisco
> support is generally considered to be very good. But, one of the
> complaints I frequently hear is the cost of it, as well as the
> equipment. However, the latter problem has much improved. New
> equipment is considered to be capital expenditure and is much
> easier to
> handle then yearly on-going expenses.
This is obviously an opinionated subject but, in mine, the reason
Cisco equipment is relatively expensive is not necessarily because of
it's performance. The strongest argument for Cisco kit in any bid
I've seen is the level of support (i.e. the TAC).
There are plently of other vendors who have equivalent products that
are widely regarded as faster, more stable and cheaper than Cisco kit
but when the chips (and your network) are down, try getting someone
at Lucent/Juniper/Foundry to pick up your case within a few minutes
and be on the phone to you and connected to your equipment to
troubleshoot until that problem is fixed.
In short, if you have Cisco kit, get a contract! It's worth every
penny.
--- John Nemeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 6, 12:09pm,
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> }
> } To be honest, I hate to see product bashing on this list. I
> cringe
> } when I see people starting out with "I have this bug in my
> production
> } network." My first reaction is "and what did the TAC say about
> it?"
> }
> } If the response is "I don't have a support contract," my
> response is
> } "then you deserve the problems you have." It's one thing for
> someone
> } not to buy support for a home lab, but anyone (except possibly
> } high-level resellers) who doesn't is a fool.
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to say that. A lot of companies
> want/need
> the best, i.e. Cisco gear, but their budgets are somewhat tight.
> Cisco
> support is generally considered to be very good. But, one of the
> complaints I frequently hear is the cost of it, as well as the
> equipment. However, the latter problem has much improved. New
> equipment is considered to be capital expenditure and is much
> easier to
> handle then yearly on-going expenses.
>
> } Perhaps I'm in a bad mood today about negativism, if that isn't
> } circular logic. It's far too easy to slam anonymously on this
> and
>
> I don't think so; although, it might be recursive.
>
> }-- End of excerpt from "Howard C. Berkowitz"
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
