| Digg | Slashdot | Fark | Stumble | |
| MIXX | del.icio.us | Newsvine | Technorati | |
Motorola Droid: A Visual Tour
10 stunning 3D buildings made with Google SketchUp
Inside the Atari 800
The definitive Android smartphone guide
Apple Snow Leopard Server: 5 things we love, 5 things we hate
Products of the Week
Windows 7 in pictures: The coolest new hardware
These 12 gadgets let you cut the cord for good
Juniper Networks: A brief history
From WiMAX hotspots to $2,000 cell phones, a look at what caught our attention at this year¿s CTIA show.
Our round-up of intriguing new products from RSA.
hey has anyone heard orBy Anonymous on June 8, 2008, 2:57 pmhey has anyone heard or tried this VMEET video conference software from a company called Softfoundry? heard their proprietary codecs saved alot on the bandwidth. Wonder is this true as my company is exploring on a VC solution with not a hefty price tag. If is it, this solution might be what im looking for.
Open Standards vs. ProprietaryBy Anonymous on June 4, 2008, 2:38 pmI am surprisde that more people haven't pointed out that Microsoft uses proprietary codecs RTAudio and RTVideo for their solution vs. Cisco who supports a whole variety of open stadandards based codecs. Even the SIP protocol that Microsoft implements does not adhear the to SIP RFC's. Reference (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=53700175) Microsoft may claim that they can 'hook' into these open standards solutions with the addition of a mediation server, but based on that strategy I am confused.... Is Microsoft a software solution or a hardware solution. Server sprawl with MS's solution gets rediculous based on the Enterprise design they put together for me. As the other poster mentioned. They currently have no call admission control mechanisms and no QoS. Their codec uses forward error congestion control to overcome congestion which is completely backwards! You are going to send more packets when there is already congestion? Don't even get me started on their hosted LiveMeeting solution.... I will hand it to Microsoft when it comes to the MOC client interface and the application integrations. I don't suspect that it will take long for Cisco to resolve those gaps.
StandardsBy Anonymous on July 20, 2009, 4:06 pmHow does OCS not conform to IETF's RFC 3261? SIP is an extremely lightweight protocol (there are what, nine requests?) and afaik OCS handles each of them. The fact that they then *extend* on the protocol, where it has shortcomings, should come as no surprise - how else can they support for additional features? OCS interoperates with others (e.g., G.711 codec users) with the Mediation Server.
Of course I do not agree...By Anonymous on June 7, 2008, 5:23 amHi Xeno, I would like to provide you some kind of interesting ansewr and maybe open some honest discussion... It is true that Microsoft use "also" propietary codec... but why don't use beter performance codecs when you talk between two or more clients that are living on a network that is different from the PSTN and so on? If you build an Hihgway (IP netwrok) why you want still drive bycicle? you can go faster and faster... but if you want still use open standard codecs (still present on the client and negotiable if needed!), you can! Do you want to negotiate a communication between a MOC 2007 and a Tandberg or Polycom SD and or HD devoces? here we are speaking about interoperability!! what about Cisco Skinny? If Microsoft didn't decide to be part of this game probably Cisco should be on that "close" technology. Moreover All A/V player and PBX provider in the market are implementing RTVideo and RTAudio and SIP interoperability because Microsoft provided to everybody the information and library to implement those IP network optimized codecs and signaling with a program called "Open Interoperability Program" http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/office/bb735838.aspx. Up to now we didn't speak about mediation server... The mediation server has mainly two different purpouse among other. Of course change the codec opportunely if this is required (i.e.: from RTAudio to G.711 and viceversa), but the most important one is the ability to encrypting the information inside the network. All standard codec are not able to encrypt stream. Some time the information must be protected insde the networks. RTAudio and RTVideo use sRTP in order to be protected even if the information is coming from or going to the internet. We are living in a new world of communication and of course Microsoft is looking forward even if the past can be considered with some solution maybe provided by Microsoft itself and/or providing the right information to the thrid party players. Is Cisco doing this as well?
Stay tunedBy Anonymous on June 3, 2008, 3:46 amThis is definitely a battle worth watching. Two heavyweights slugging it out from their respective comfort zones. Microsoft has a obvious advantage due to end user familiarity and ease of integration into existing mediums of communication (email, IM, etc.). However, UC as an application, at least right now, has its limitations. Ensuring QoS will be a definite issue. I agree that Microsoft could win the market IF they can deliver a solution with as SLA of 5 9's and take care of latency issues with respect to voice. Let's not overlook that a Microsoft UC solution is only as reliable as the OS it resides on. Who else has had Office, XP, or Vista take a big dump on them??? Let's also recognize that Cisco has been in the business of delivering VoIP and UC for quite a while (something relatively new for Microsoft). It took Cisco a long time to iron out the wrinkles. Cisco also provides the integration of umpteen specialized applications to meet the needs of a wide array or vertical markets (mainly through partnerships with 3rd party XML application developers), and has addressed the QoS issues with time sensitive voice packets. In addition, Cisco can deliver a complete "end-to-end" solution, and integrates very well into Microsoft Office and Lotus Sametime. This is proven by the feature/functionality of Cisco Unity and CUPC (Cisco Unified Personal Communicator). As I said, this will be an interesting battle to watch. I'm gonna keep my money in "The Human Network's" corner for now.
Some consideations as well...By Anonymous on June 7, 2008, 5:55 amHi Tanner, hi appreciated your warm post. Every Voip provider can deliver solution can be "integrated" in the desktop environment, but I'd like to point out some consdierations. 1) Microsoft, on a company network and desktop, with a single client (MOC 2007) and a server (OCS 2007) "Enable" and don't "Integrate" UC functionalities that leverage the existing infrastructure. 2) Let assume that a company has 500 PC (a medium/small company)... it is correct that Cisco (as well as Avaya, Nortel, Alcatel, etc.) provides it's own solution with up to 5-7 plug-ins (BTW this means 500*7 = 3500 client installation), but what about if one of those plug-in is not working? i.e.: the outlook plug-in is blocked by a non tested patch installation and the information worker maybe can no longer use its mail client. This represent the real cost of the implementation, the so-called TCO!! 3) Microsoft is not providing an IP-PBX but is leveraging existing infrastructure with interoperability solution. All PBX provider are looking to interoperate with OCS 2007. The Cisco experience is huge in the VoIP (but let's say ToIP solution). Then, in my opinion, Microsoft in the IT network and Cisco in the TLC network can provide their own big experience and Cisco should look for their IP-PBX competitor instead of looking at Microsoft as a competitor in the IT area. Just my point of view...
UC By Anonymous on June 2, 2008, 8:01 pmJust read the Gartner report , Cisco has over simplified the presentation and the scalability & features offered on the Little Hardware units does not validate the statement being made , suppose you would buy into it if you didnt know better
But the deciding factor is.....By Anonymous on June 2, 2008, 6:08 pmCute slide show but overly simplistic. It also doesn't mention the major, deciding factor for most businesses that will make the call regarding UC infrastructure....the level of integration into the exising desktop. I'm a big Cisco IP fan, and am implementing the Cisco VoIP platform just as fast as I can. But when it comes to UC, they won't be able to touch the level of integration Miscrosoft will be able to provide with UC funcitonality into all of the Microsoft applications on my desktop.
Agreed -By Anonymous on June 2, 2008, 7:09 pmAgreed - SharePoint/Office/Outlook/Exch integration is already fantastic, MS has a corner on the desktop. Cisco has great signaling, but if MS can take over the PBX with five 9's, they'll be able to take the market. Avaya? They own the Call Center, that's a space where MS will have a very hard time penetrating.
What exactly are you trying to print?By Adam Gaffin on June 2, 2008, 4:16 pmThe slide show or the article? I'm not seeing a 600-page listing anywhere.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
RE: Head-to-head comparison of Cisco vs. Microsoft UC solutionsBy Anonymous on June 2, 2008, 2:00 pmwould like to be able to print this side by side analysis.. print preview is beyond 600 pages???
sdfasBy Anonymous on October 16, 2009, 2:56 am images are too great. looks like replica watches replica watch omega watches abit artificial. but true that for sure. ]Cartier Paris Woman's Watch-C298 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Paris Woman's Watch-C300 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Paris Woman's Watch-C294 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Paris Woman's Watch-C296 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Paris Woman's Watch-C292 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Paris Woman's Watch-C290 Replica Cheap For Sale Pasha Watches, Cheap Cartier Replica Watches For Sale Santos Watches, Cheap Cartier Replica Watches For Sale
asdfasdBy Anonymous on October 16, 2009, 2:38 am No other updates at this time, replica watches replica watch omega watches I'll keep my ear to the ground. Cartier Woman's Watch-C258 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Woman's Watch-C270 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Woman's Watch-C256 Replica Cheap For Sale Cartier Man's Watch-C421 Replica Cheap For Sale Paris Watches, Cheap Cartier Replica Watches For Sale
High CPU when using CUPCBy Anonymous on June 16, 2009, 10:31 amWe are currently using Cisco's Call manager product with presence server. We have deployed CUPC throughout our organization but have found very high CPU and MEM Usage on most of our machine. When looking at processes in Task Manager, CUPC is at top of list most every time. We also notice a huge issue with auto logging in. It seems the CUPC Client forgets its settings. I wish it would authenticate its session when a user logs into windows. Another issue is the status icons of other users. There is no different color or icon type if other user is idle, away or on the phone. This is a huge problem for us. We spent a lot of money in purchasing the Cisco solution, as well as deployment cost. The product seems to be designed as an after thought or add on. It could be a powerful tool if it was designed properly. We have yanked the product on most desktops except for our engineering staff. We are now looking at the Microsoft product to see if there is an integration path with our presence server. I have talked with Cisco in great detail about this issue, but the attitude is "Thats the way it is, live with it" I have always been a huge Cisco fan, but lately several of there voice products have left a bad taste in my mouth. They are very expensive. They should honor their customers who shell out that kind of cash with a product that works well and the end user is not frustrated.
grabbing market shareBy Anonymous on July 16, 2008, 8:11 amCisco have most of the bases covered re: ironing out the bumps, plus features, plus wide support for codecs and other vendors equipment, oh and of course a ratified installation base: they got history in IPT! MS$ merrily bolts-on what it can to get in on another market segment; thats what it does... some of it may not be pretty, but the already-integrated with MS$ apps angle will always leverage a lot of customers, because it will always look on paper to reduce the learning/support impact (never mind the IT versus voice support wrangle). There appears to be an inevitability for some MS$ customers to simply go with the flow and adopt MS$ UC when they have the budget ("multiple vendors = too hard basket", among other perceptions). Others will buck this trend given their avoidance of all-eggs-in-one-basket philosophy and the challenges therein; they may choose Cisco, an alternative supplier, or embark on open-source/DIY. Should Cisco go up against big voice iron vendors, or rattle MS$ cage at the low-2-mid end of the market? Maybe... if MS$ hammers their market share in this segment they may have to... interesting space to watch.
This is really 2 entirelyBy Anonymous on June 12, 2008, 1:52 pmThis is really 2 entirely different things. Microsoft is based on software with absolutly no integration or QoS for the hardware. In fact it will not take advantage of QoS even if it is available from switchees , phones and routers. Microsoft is in this for the home market and they will do well there. They can not expect to write software and attach it to a market that Cisco has 85% of. The Cisco solution is one that takes advantage of QoS from the phones(layer 3 switches that work as phones and provide QoS) to the switches that provide both QoS and PoE so one wire can handle both network and phone. They also do QoS from router to router and now MPLS is out which will run QoS over the wire. The key to this is that Microsoft does not take andvantage of this even if it is a Cisco phone and switched network with PoE. They simple choose not to run true QoS. This is a clear victory for Cisco in the business world which is why Cisco is the number 1 provider in the world of IP based solutions and phones. Microsoft is just starting in to this but clearly needs to rework their entire base package to even hope to really make an impact.
Microsoft QoSBy Anonymous on June 23, 2008, 4:07 pmI think you should do some research into MSFT and QoS marking before marking any claims on what is and isnt supported. QoS and DSCP marks are supported through using group policies in MSFT world. You will also have to enable your switching equipement to trust the DSCP markings coming from the PC as typically the defualt is to not trust PC's and remove DSCP markings from traffic back to 0. Each company has it strengths and weakness' but both have a place in the market place. Three places Cisco will continue to suffer is on price, complete relience on approved hardware and an incomplete UC package (they dont do email). Unless they turn around the first two they will start to loss their current position in the market.
Cisco sucksBy Anonymous on June 6, 2008, 2:22 pmWell, theres no comparison. Cisco products really suck. They are just a waste of investment.
I laughedBy Anonymous on June 6, 2008, 11:35 pmThank you Jerry for that insightful comment. *roll-eyes* Microsoft is still a toddler in this field. Consider the quality of support as well when you invest in the product. MS's solutions don't even end up being as good a deal as you might think when you actually start trying to implement them "in the wild" at least yet.
This is starting to soundBy Anonymous on June 12, 2008, 1:07 pmThis is starting to sound like an Obama vs. Clinton blog