Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!
-
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!
-
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@dustinb3403 said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@jaredbusch said in Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise:
@scottalanmiller said in [Hardware differences - what makes one less than enterprise]
The software. The hardware is about equal, sort of.
But a $95 Ubiquiti is faster than a $3,000 CIsco. So the hardware still matters. Cisco at $3,000 is "Maybe able to handle your house."
Prove this.
Don't bullshit or theorize. Prove it. Get a unit and run tests or stopping stating it like a fact and predicate these statements with "in my opinion" and such.
Granted I'll never buy Cisco in the SMB when Ubiquiti exists for the cost and performance that it currently exists with.
But none of that invalidates the quality or functionality of Cisco hardware and software.
Cost has nothing to do with that.
I'm not the one making the claim, it's based off of measured PPS between the two.
You are the one always making the claim and have never linked to source material to back up your claims.
I've never made the claim. I've repeated Ubiquiti's performance measurements. It's nothing to do with me. I just remember the number and repeat it as it is a critical guideline for understanding where Ubiquiti falls within the Cisco product range. When people are talking $10K Ciscos, we can't talk Ubiquiti, it just doesn't make sense. But at $3K and below, I've never had anyone come up with any value proposition to Cisco gear considering that Ubiquiti is measured at better throughput until that price point. Granted, Ubiquiti did the study, but Cisco has not disputed it or claimed any other performance of which I am aware.
If you're repeating it, find the source and post a link, FFS. I want to believe a lot of what you say, but I agree with @jaredbusch here. It comes out like another scott-ism.
It only sounds that way because you think I don't have sources for all of my stuff.
You can always go look up Cisco performance, too, and see what it is.
But you're the person spouting something off as a fact, so provide the source!
This is correct, it is not our job to do research when you are the one claiming a fact. It is the reader's job to verify, but the reader cannot do that without the initial facts.
Yes, I know you already answered. Just closing my part of the conversation.
