And 'round and 'round we go...
"...Well, from what you say, you change out your gear relatively often, since that's part of your "technology and depreciation cycle". Or so you argued earlier. So how it makes sense that you wouldn't see failures that might happen after a longer period of time." It's industry best-practice... again, there's a reason the product went EoL. I'm sure even HP would tell you to replace an EoL product. "...If Cisco knows that, why does Cisco exclude fans and power supplies from their warranty? Because it unnecessarily costs them money in the long run. If the product was going to fail, it will likely fail during the warranty period. Failing outside of the warranty period is considered normal wear/tear... why should they be responsible for it? Equivocate all you want -- HP's got the better warranty." I don't think I ever "equivocated" that Cisco had a better warranty. Merely, that I feel their support is better... even though you have to pay for it. "...They aren't, but you are suggesting that if equipment is 5 years past end-of-life, then one shouldn't be using the equipment any more. Perhaps that's just your opinion, and not Cisco's mindset. Fair enough. But if I'm still using that equipment, Cisco won't support it HP will." No argument there... but it's not my opinion by the way. It's considered best practice to routinely refresh your network infrastructure... why do servers get replaced every 3-4-5-6 years? "...Offering a better warranty is a lame attempt to acquire market share? I'm perplexed. You apparently think offering better support is "lame". <irony> I mean, how *dare* they offer better support! The nerve! </irony> Does that also mean that if HP is building a better product, that is a "lame attempt to acquire market share"?" Nope... but COOL use of HTML tags! Now I really feel inferior. Here, let me try... <rebuttal> It's lame because people always want to yell from the rooftops about how HP's ProCurve switches are SOOOO much better of a product, yet no one can come up with concrete numbers of truly how much better they are and why. When asked, it's simply ... "Well they have a better warranty and free support." Big freakin' deal. Seriously... the best HP can do to prove how much better they are than Cisco is to show that their warranty is better? Does that make a Kia better than a Cadillac?</rebuttal> "...The cost of support is included in the cost of the product. It's not "free". There was a time when if you bought something, customer service came with it. You didn't have to pay extra just to get a company to stand behind their product. HP has largely gotten away from that, unfortunately, but their networking division still holds to it." Wait... it's not free? Now I'm confused. By the way, Cisco's not forcing you to pay extra for their lifetime warranty... excluding the argument of who's warranty is better. "...I've found the ProCurve front line support techs to by quite knowledgeable, cluefull, willing and able to help. How often have you called HP support?" For the last time... I'm not arguing that HP doesn't have good support, simply that you get what you pay for. I've spoken with HP support quite a bit actually. They are a pleasure to deal with, but DO lack when it comes to complex integration problems. "...So, I believe what you're saying is: What one division is doing has nothing to do with another division. Hmmm, that sounds familiar..." What? I didn't come up with that logic... it was presented to me. "...I've found that while paying too little generally means you get less, paying more doesn't always mean you get proportionally more." Umm... yes, this is the point I've been trying to make. "...Cisco purchased their switching division in 1993; it used to be Crescendo[1]. I believe HP has been making network switches/repeaters longer than that, although I don't have a source handy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescendo_Communications"; Fair enough... "...Why shouldn't we count that? It was an HP product line. It included network switches. Why don't those switches count?" "...They made network switches. I don't know what you consider "networking devices", but I count switches." I stand corrected... I considered them all hubs, but apparently they made one line of switches. "...67% and dropping[2]. [2] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/022210-ethernet-switch-market.html"; ...OK... an extra 5% because HP acquired 3Com I suppose? "...They've been making Ethernet gear for decades. They design and build their own switch ASICs. HP claimed to be the second-largest switch vendor in 2008, and to be growing more than three times as fast as the rest of the industry[3]. Then, of course, they bought 3Com -- who literally *invented* the commercial Ethernet market. So they've got credentials, and they're in a position to know what they're doing. [3] http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2008/080527a.html"; No doubt... not sure when/if I argued against this? HP has a great product... and they certainly have the credentials. I still think Cisco has a better (though more expensive) product. Is this just shared as an FYI, or was there a point here? "...I doubt Cisco really has *that* much of an edge in knowledge. So now we're even: We both doubt the other's vague, unsourced, unquantifiable statements." Sure... sounds good. Agree to disagree. "...You asked about liability; I answered. If the sun explodes, you'll never get your replacement product. But yes, they really do promise to ship overnight, which Cisco does not. In writing." "...Let me get this straight: HP quotes Cisco's own contract, and does better, but that... doesn't mean they're better?" Fine... they'll ship overnight, and their terms are better. Never argued that. I'm only arguing that HP is taking the fine print about a worst case scenario on the RMA process and showing how they do it better - when in fact they are bound by that *same* worst case verbiage... they just don't come out and say it. Kudos to them, but I just don't think it's a major selling point. Your mileage may vary. Shame on Cisco, I suppose. "...I had a customer whose 10/100 managed repeater finally died. HP shipped a 10/100 managed switch." Oh OK... argument resolved then. "...Others on this list have reported similar stories." Let them speak... "...Doubt all you want, that's what they've done. But I guess you'd rather deny facts than consider the possibility that Cisco is overpriced." Hah! What? When did I ever "deny facts" that Cisco is overpriced? They ARE some of the most over-priced products out there. But they ARE also some of the best products out there. "...Interesting. Three paragraphs up, you're claiming that HP citing Cisco's warranty *in writing* isn't a fair comparison. But now you want something in writing." What? Not quite sure what you're getting at here... But yes... since this warranty is apparently the end-all-be-all warranty of warranties, and HP will give you "something better" when your product dies, where *in writing* does it say this? "...But anyway: "HP will, at its option, repair or replace the affected products." Page 11 of our ProCurve license-and-warranty booklet, HP P/N 5990-8862. They don't promise something better, but they promise to repair or *replace*. In writing." Exactly... they don't promise to replace with something better. Just that they'll repair/replace "at their option." Interesting verbiage don't you think? I thought hands down you just got a new one when yours didn't work? Aaron T. Rohyans Senior Network Engineer CCIE #21945 DPSciences Corporation 7400 N. Shadeland Ave., Suite 245 Indianapolis, IN 46250 Office: (317) 348-0099 Fax: (317) 849-7134 arohy...@dpsciences.com http://www.dpsciences.com/ "I want an Anti-Virus system that sends Arnold back in time to kill the hacker as a small child before he invents the virus..." "There are 10 kinds of people in this world... those who can read binary, and those who can't" -----Original Message----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 6:04 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Switch opinions On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Rohyans, Aaron <arohy...@dpsciences.com> wrote: > In 15 years of working with this stuff, I can count on one hand how many fan > failures I've had in Cisco gear... Well, from what you say, you change out your gear relatively often, since that's part of your "technology and depreciation cycle". Or so you argued earlier. So how it makes sense that you wouldn't see failures that might happen after a longer period of time. > My point is that HP knows this... as does Cisco... the odds > of their gear failing like this are slim unless due to a defect in > production... If Cisco knows that, why does Cisco exclude fans and power supplies from their warranty? Equivocate all you want -- HP's got the better warranty. >> "...In my experience, in many organizations, network equipment has a >> much longer lifecycle than computers. A great many places *still* >> don't need anything more than 100 megabit to the desktop. So a 10-15 >> year usable lifetime isn't unrealistic. Obviously some shops need to >> upgrade more often than that, but many don't. >> >> I like that with ProCurve, I get to decide when my equipment is >> obsolete; HP doesn't do it for me." > > How is Cisco forcing you to change out your gear just because a product goes > EoL? They aren't, but you are suggesting that if equipment is 5 years past end-of-life, then one shouldn't be using the equipment any more. Perhaps that's just your opinion, and not Cisco's mindset. Fair enough. But if I'm still using that equipment, Cisco won't support it -- HP will. > "...What does that have to do with what switch I should buy?" > > It's a lame attempt to acquire market share by offering free support on the > product line. Offering a better warranty is a lame attempt to acquire market share? I'm perplexed. You apparently think offering better support is "lame". <irony> I mean, how *dare* they offer better support! The nerve! </irony> Does that also mean that if HP is building a better product, that is a "lame attempt to acquire market share"? > Free support? That sounds cheap to me... like > consumer grade (NOTE that I am *not* calling HP ProCurve consumer grade). The cost of support is included in the cost of the product. It's not "free". There was a time when if you bought something, customer service came with it. You didn't have to pay extra just to get a company to stand behind their product. HP has largely gotten away from that, unfortunately, but their networking division still holds to it. > If I don't have to pay for it, what kind of "brainchild" individuals are > manning the TAC? I've found the ProCurve front line support techs to by quite knowledgeable, cluefull, willing and able to help. How often have you called HP support? > Why not offer free lifetime support/replacement on > PCs/Servers/Monitors/etc? Again: What one division is doing has nothing to do with another division. >> "...By that logic: Cisco owns LinkSys, LinkSys's stuff is cheap consumer >> crap, therefore, all of Cisco's stuff must be cheap consumer crap." > > Yep... that's the exact logic I was trying get across. A subordinate company > sells junk, so that makes the parent company product junk. Where in my > statement did you draw that conclusion? Seriously? So, I believe what you're saying is: What one division is doing has nothing to do with another division. Hmmm, that sounds familiar... > Again, you get what you pay for... err, not pay for. I've found that while paying too little generally means you get less, paying more doesn't always mean you get proportionally more. > "... I believe HP has been making switches longer than Cisco has." > > HP's definitely been around longer than Cisco, yes... but making switches > longer, no. Cisco purchased their switching division in 1993; it used to be Crescendo[1]. I believe HP has been making network switches/repeaters longer than that, although I don't have a source handy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescendo_Communications > Unless you count the "old" days where HP marketed their > "Ethertwist" line... Why shouldn't we count that? It was an HP product line. It included network switches. Why don't those switches count? > ... but even then it was geared around networked devices... not > networking devices. They made network switches. I don't know what you consider "networking devices", but I count switches. > What do you consider "huge"? Cisco owns 72.3% of the Ethernet Switching > market share... 67% and dropping[2]. [2] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/022210-ethernet-switch-market.html > And what is "extensive" layer 2 knowledge? They've been making Ethernet gear for decades. They design and build their own switch ASICs. HP claimed to be the second-largest switch vendor in 2008, and to be growing more than three times as fast as the rest of the industry[3]. Then, of course, they bought 3Com -- who literally *invented* the commercial Ethernet market. So they've got credentials, and they're in a position to know what they're doing. [3] http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2008/080527a.html > I doubt they have the knowledge "at the > ready" to tackle complex switching problems. I doubt Cisco really has *that* much of an edge in knowledge. So now we're even: We both doubt the other's vague, unsourced, unquantifiable statements. >> "...They do indeed promise immediate shipment via next day carrier. >> Strictly speaking, "delivery" is up to the carrier, I presume..." > > Interesting... so theoretically, it could take say, up to 10 days to get your > replacement product? You asked about liability; I answered. If the sun explodes, you'll never get your replacement product. But yes, they really do promise to ship overnight, which Cisco does not. In writing. > Again, HP is simply taking worst-case verbiage from > Cisco and turning it around to show you how much better they are... err, > aren't. Let me get this straight: HP quotes Cisco's own contract, and does better, but that... doesn't mean they're better? > "...In my experience, if HP doesn't have your part they'll ship you something > better." > > Example? I had a customer whose 10/100 managed repeater finally died. HP shipped a 10/100 managed switch. Others on this list have reported similar stories. >Somehow I doubt they're going to ship you "something better" on a > lot of their products. Doubt all you want, that's what they've done. But I guess you'd rather deny facts than consider the possibility that Cisco is overpriced. > Can you point me to where in their warranty that > this is expressed? Interesting. Three paragraphs up, you're claiming that HP citing Cisco's warranty *in writing* isn't a fair comparison. But now you want something in writing. But anyway: "HP will, at its option, repair or replace the affected products." Page 11 of our ProCurve license-and-warranty booklet, HP P/N 5990-8862. They don't promise something better, but they promise to repair or *replace*. In writing. -- 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 ~ 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
