Re: microsoft lync 2010 Vs Call manager

Full blown CM is not meant for 100 users. CME however is. You do lose some
of the full blown bells and whistles, but that doesn't mean you can't get
them the functionality they need for a contact center (or any other UC
feature for that matter). I have deployed many CME systems with trixbox for
all of the VM, Auto Attend, etc (much cheaper than Unity express and for the
price, UC is WAY out of the ballpark for 100 users). But once again, it will
cost whomever I'm doing this for some money. Granted, it won't be near as
much as a complete UC system from some vendor (be it Cisco, Avaya, Nortal,
etc) + install, labor, etc. But, I can meet their budget and give them as
many features as possible. Many vendors "punish, as you say" small business
in this region with overblown UC systems on which half of them come with
features the customer won't ever use, or they do the "that feature is $10k
extra" model which doesn't work for alot of shops either.

I do understand the situation with RFP's though. The best solution doesn't
always get the job. And the RFP's aren't always written by someone who
understands all of the options out there. Nature of the beast :)

M

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Joseph L. Brunner
<joe_at_affirmedsystems.com>wrote:

> "Punishing" small business (under 100 seats) unfortunately, has been
> cisco's pricing model.
>
> I'm a reseller and I just priced ucm 8 for about 200 users.
>
> Cisco is the best- no doubt.
>
> But a lousy pbx maker won the deal on price. Oh well.
>
> Joe
>
>
> *From*: Max Pierson [mailto:nmaxpierson_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent*: Monday, January 17, 2011 02:22 PM
> *To*: Joseph L. Brunner
> *Cc*: John Haddad <loserboy3000_at_hotmail.com>; ccielab_at_groupstudy.com <
> ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
> *Subject*: Re: microsoft lync 2010 Vs Call manager
>
> "Voice, video, presence and contact center shouldn't cost a lot of money
> in a corporate environment."
>
> As the old saying goes, "You get what you pay for". As always, there are
> a few exceptions, but rarely in the Communications world.
>
> Where have you been the last 10 years?? Microsoft should be the last
> thoughts when this type of comment is made. Why do you think Cisco's Unified
> Communications runs on linux?? ;) Why is their (M$) OS's so expensive when
> it say it's an unfinished OS that crashes half the time. Why does it take up
> 500mb to <1gb of memory just to run the OS (no other processes) (me thinks
> Microsoft should have pushed their embedded OS much more for things like
> this)?? Why do you think the W7 mobile platform hasn't sold nearly the
> handsets that Ballmer predicted?? Microsoft is good, even sometimes great
> at some things (take their Office & Exchange products, they've gotten 10
> times better since 2000 which was a CPU hog), Unified Communications is NOT
> one of them. And if the don't make some serious moves, this decade will end
> up like the last decade .... still trying to chase the glory days when
> people were ignorant about other OS's and didn't have a clue they were
> working on a platform that was bug ridden and half ass coded. We've seen
> over the last decade where Microsoft has taken itself (or not taken itself)
> and I for one won't be the least bit effected if Redmond slides off into the
> Pacific :)
>
> In all seriousness, I know of a few clients that have moved to all
> Microsoft shops (due to having alot of MCSE types in their IT department)
> and they regretted "putting all their eggs in one basket" to say. I would do
> a little more research before going down this path. If you're not worried
> about scalability and having to dedicate a Tuesday out of the month for
> patching, Microsoft is your answer then. I for one don't like taking my car
> back to the dealership to have an engine tune up every month.
>
> Whether it turns out you deploy a free solution(trixbox,asterisk, etc) or
> buy a Unified Communications system, it's going to cost money. If John down
> in his basement office does a DIY type of setup, that still costs MONEY and
> TIME. Now John will be stuck with that DIY solution. What if John leaves ??
>
> No thank you, i'll stick with some other solution. As the Radioactive
> Frog says, I'd stay away from anything Microsoft when it comes to Unified
> Communications. There's a ton out there available on the cheap that doesn't
> require a Microsoft OS involved. Would you run a corporate UC system on a
> Vista machine??
>
> Max
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Joseph L. Brunner <
> joe_at_affirmedsystems.com> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft sales teams are honest.
>>
>> It's a great product. If you would like a demo unicast me at the end of
>> the month. We are deploying this now.
>>
>> It going to be a GREAT decade for Microsoft. Many firms with "unified
>> communications" offerings will simply go the way of "LOTUS 123" and "WORD
>> PERFECT".
>>
>> Voice, video, presence and contact center shouldn't cost a lot of money in
>> a corporate environment.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> John Haddad
>> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:36 PM
>> To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> Subject: RE: microsoft lync 2010 Vs Call manager
>>
>> Finial decision team;
>>
>> 1- Simplicity of the administration ===h Microsoft
>> 2- Doing my requirements with low cost ==hMicrosoft
>> 3- Only problem with Micrsoft is the integration with call center
>> (CRM)
>> and because we don t require such integration and we are looking for the
>> basic
>> contact center =====hMicrosoft
>>
>> With all respect I can see Lync is much more stable than older version and
>> a
>> lot of functionalities were added
>>
>> Microsoft sales teams are good and they may take Unified solution from
>> Cisco
>> soon J
>>
>>
>>
>> > From: loserboy3000_at_hotmail.com
>> > To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: RE: microsoft lync 2010 Vs Call manager
>> > Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 08:08:18 +0000
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for everyone the feedback, today we will have live demo
>> from
>> > microsoft and i shall feed you back with my findings
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for everyone,
>> >
>> >
>> > > Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:21:26 +1100
>> > > Subject: Re: microsoft lync 2010 Vs Call manager
>> > > From: pbhatkoti_at_gmail.com
>> > > To: loserboy3000_at_hotmail.com
>> > > CC: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
>> > >
>> > > Choice - go for cisco.
>> > > also contact your local cisco AM, they have loads of power point
>> slides
>> on
>> > > why you shud "not' buy other than Cisco.
>> > > Imaigine - you walked into your office at 9am and see BDOS and whole
>> > company
>> > > have no phone :(
>> > > i guess 400 people using the system need $$$$
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:40 AM, John Haddad
>> > <loserboy3000_at_hotmail.com>wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi to everyone,
>> > > >
>> > > > i am searing since a week for a good reason to convenience our
>> management
>> > > > to
>> > > > go with call manager instead of Microsoft Solution, but i couldn't
>> the
>> > only
>> > > > thing which i found is the following
>> > > >
>> > > > 1-MS doesn't support special type of video codex
>> > > > 2- MS doesn't support the Forced Authorization Code
>> > > > 3-MS doesn't offer contact center solution, and also webex
>> > > > 4-MS solution is layer 7 application which deals with voice like any
>> > other
>> > > > programs it will not treat it as priority traffic !!!
>> > > >
>> > > > On the other hand
>> > > > MS will give us
>> > > > 1- unlimited number of softphones which will reduce the cost of the
>> > > > comparison
>> > > > a lot
>> > > > 2-MS will support Voice messaging, auto attended feature as well
>> > > >
>> > > > we are planning to go with 400 users, but till now i cannot convince
>> the
>> > > > management and convince myself regarding MS product.
>> > > >
>> > > > If you can help me to judge which product is better and why that
>> will
>> be
>> > > > great.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thx,
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> > >
>> > >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Jan 17 2011 - 13:51:41 ART