On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Rohyans, Aaron <arohy...@dpsciences.com> 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.
I think that's the same argument the HP fans have been making: Cisco charges considerably more money, but doesn't give you proportionally more product and support. To illustrate the concept with a made-up example: If the Cisco product costs 150% more than the equivalent ProCurve product, but Cisco's product is only 10% better, it's a bad value proposition. (Again, numbers are completely made up; I'm illustrating the concept.) > Does HP provide the same level of support from a value perspective > as Cisco? … I would have to say no. I would have to say yes. (My ad hominem is better than your ad hominem!) > ... 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. You keep disparaging ProCurve's product support people. Why? Do you have any basis for that attitude? > 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. I've got access to support, including escalation (in theory) to engineering, although I've never had to go that far. I have gotten firmware releases not yet in general availability. I have had them examine debug dumps. No complaints. > Keep in mind also that Cisco offers one of the best online > documentation systems of any manufacturer in the world… Unless you're looking for something under last year's name... >... becoming familiar with Cisco products is not > hard… and it’s free. Ditto for HP's products. All their documentation is posted online, they've got online forums and a knowledge base, etc., etc. And it's actually *easier* to become familiar with HP's products, since they don't cost as much to get hands on. > As to the price difference… we could argue features all day long… but how do > you define “comparable” switches? Indeed. How *do* *you* define these special features Cisco has which HP does not? Come on, you're saying Cisco has got "the most granular and technologically advanced features". That sounds very specific. So what are you referring to? > 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. If percentage of market share is the only factor in determining what is better/more suited, then clearly 8-bit microprocessors are much better than 32- or 64-bit microprocessors. > I’m not arguing the “quality” of HP/Cisco switches here. Okay, so far, we've established ProCurve is equivalent equipment quality, better warranty, and a lower price. We're now arguing about features and quality of support, but specifics are notably absent. -- Ben ~ 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
