RE: (usr-tc) v.92 for quads update
With all due respect, how long should 3Com support old products? How long should any manufacturer support old products? At what price? How much would those of you who don't have support contracts pay for a V.92 upgrade for the quads? Like you, 3Com's goal is to make a profit, and unless they can recoup the development cost, it doesn't make sense to invest in the upgrade. Technology changes. Should Microsoft continue to support the 486 with Win2K? How about the 386? It's not even clear that the quad modem cards have enough memory or CPU or that the rest of the hardware will support V.92. I realize that there are a lot of ISPs that are using the quads, but it's simply not realistic to expect 3Com or any other manufacturer to support old equipment ad infinitum. Let's get real. 3Com is not doing anything different from most any other manufacturer in this business. Any box you buy will be obsolete in just a few years, and it's hard to move forward if you carry too much baggage from the past around with you. Mark Levy FSInet
From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Yeah...and EOL'ing the quads was a collosally bad mistake. They need to be "unEOL'ed". They pulled this same exact crap two years ago with the NETServer to HiPer Arc transition and EOL'ing of the NETServer, two years before that, it was the dual modem cards. What's it going to be two years from now? Either we need to get 3Com/CommWorks to realize that installed customer base is important, or they're going to loose us as a customer.
I know Paul, they've already lost you, and I *certainly* don't fault you for that decision, and I'm almost there myself, but I'm trying for one last ditch effort here.
3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what sort of installed base in still out there for thier equipment. I bet Al and Irfan barely remember the dual modem cards (if they remember them at all)...I still have several in production use sitting at the bottom of a rack, never being noticed or messed with at all until we start getting busy signals on that hunt group and we go and physically reseat them to reset them.
3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what their issues are with support contracts.
OK...screw it...I'm gonna tell this, its been two years. Two years ago, with the NETServer being EOL'ed, and the transition to HiPer Arcs, I raised about the same issues that I'm raising here, with about the same response initially. After screaming and yelling about the situation for a couple of weeks (I think it was) I was contacted about getting NETServers swapped for HiPer Arcs...this was the doing of the sales side of things within 3Com at the time...this wasn't a deal that 3Com as a whole corporate body was doing...this was a special deal that the sales folks there made with IgLou because we made the ultimatum, "Either you resolve this issue to our satisfaction, or you loose us as a customer." They resolved it. They did a 1 for 1 trade of HiPer Arcs for NETServers, at no cost to IgLou. The deal, however, was that I couldn't tell anyone how this came about because it was a special deal they were doing for me and they couldn't have everyone coming to them demanding the same thing.
So, for those of you that remember the NETServer to HiPer Arc thing, if any of you wondered why I suddenly went silent on that issue (or nearly so anyway), that's why.
So...what was the result of that...I got my HiPer Arcs, and I no longer suffered from Quake Lag or multi-chassis multi-link MPIP instabilities. However, 3Com continued in their ways and didn't learn anything from the situation, and here we are, 2 years later is *exactly* the same situation, just with a different card and 3Com is making the same *exact* mistake. 3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the importance of installed base. 3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the importance (or economics, apparently!) of reasonable availability of support contracts.
Well...here we are again...and here's the situation again. 3Com either resolves this situation to my satisfaction, or they loose me as a customer, period. Its the same ultimatum as two years ago with NETServers. This time, however, there will be no silencing of me with the deal. Whatever deal I get better be one that 3Com/CommWorks is willing for everyone to know about, because I will not be silent on it.
-- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
I would have to agree with Mark on this. Cisco has EOL'd products that still do the job that they were originally installed to do, but was not cost effective to update to handle the advances in technology. Lucent has done the same. Technology changes daily and it becomes more difficult to support the older hardware and make it work with the changes in technology. I have a variety of equipment, both older and new. I also accept that as technology changes and advances, I either adapt and change with it or fall behind. I budget every year for additional hardware to upgrade what might be EOL'd just to try to stay not so far behind. It's a sad fact that in the IT sector, things change daily and equipment becomes "obsolete" faster than I wear out a pair of shoes. I've been pleased with the 3Com products that I have. The 2 times that I've needed support from 3Com, I received the assistance that I needed. I'm not saying that I didn't tell them what the problem was and how I expected it to be taken care of, but it was taken care of. I have a service contract as a necessary evil, just like I have auto insurance. I also have the same on my Cisco equipment and can't say that their support was better or worse. The reason that I have the service contract on my 3Com and Cisco equipment is for the software. The prices for the contracts were fairly comparable and is viewed as something needed to maintain the equipment. I have some quads out there, both analog and digital. They're still in use because they are cheap, paid for and do the job that I need them to. When they stop doing the job, they'll be unplugged and replaced with equipment that will someday make a good quality anchor for my boat. Lance Eves Kanokla Communications
-----Original Message----- From: owner-usr-tc@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-usr-tc@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Mark E. Levy Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 9:29 PM To: 'usr-tc@lists.xmission.com' Subject: RE: (usr-tc) v.92 for quads update
With all due respect, how long should 3Com support old products? How long should any manufacturer support old products? At what price? How much would those of you who don't have support contracts pay for a V.92 upgrade for the quads? Like you, 3Com's goal is to make a profit, and unless they can recoup the development cost, it doesn't make sense to invest in the upgrade.
Technology changes. Should Microsoft continue to support the 486 with Win2K? How about the 386? It's not even clear that the quad modem cards have enough memory or CPU or that the rest of the hardware will support V.92.
I realize that there are a lot of ISPs that are using the quads, but it's simply not realistic to expect 3Com or any other manufacturer to support old equipment ad infinitum.
Let's get real. 3Com is not doing anything different from most any other manufacturer in this business. Any box you buy will be obsolete in just a few years, and it's hard to move forward if you carry too much baggage from the past around with you.
Mark Levy FSInet
From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Yeah...and EOL'ing the quads was a collosally bad mistake. They need to be "unEOL'ed". They pulled this same exact crap two years ago with the NETServer to HiPer Arc transition and EOL'ing of the NETServer, two years before that, it was the dual modem cards. What's it going to be two years from now? Either we need to get 3Com/CommWorks to realize that installed customer base is important, or they're going to loose us as a customer.
I know Paul, they've already lost you, and I *certainly* don't fault you for that decision, and I'm almost there myself, but I'm trying for one last ditch effort here.
3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what sort of installed base in still out there for thier equipment. I bet Al and Irfan barely remember the dual modem cards (if they remember them at all)...I still have several in production use sitting at the bottom of a rack, never being noticed or messed with at all until we start getting busy signals on that hunt group and we go and physically reseat them to reset them.
3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what their issues are with support contracts.
OK...screw it...I'm gonna tell this, its been two years. Two years ago, with the NETServer being EOL'ed, and the transition to HiPer Arcs, I raised about the same issues that I'm raising here, with about the same response initially. After screaming and yelling about the situation for a couple of weeks (I think it was) I was contacted about getting NETServers swapped for HiPer Arcs...this was the doing of the sales side of things within 3Com at the time...this wasn't a deal that 3Com as a whole corporate body was doing...this was a special deal that the sales folks there made with IgLou because we made the ultimatum, "Either you resolve this issue to our satisfaction, or you loose us as a customer." They resolved it. They did a 1 for 1 trade of HiPer Arcs for NETServers, at no cost to IgLou. The deal, however, was that I couldn't tell anyone how this came about because it was a special deal they were doing for me and they couldn't have everyone coming to them demanding the same thing.
So, for those of you that remember the NETServer to HiPer Arc thing, if any of you wondered why I suddenly went silent on that issue (or nearly so anyway), that's why.
So...what was the result of that...I got my HiPer Arcs, and I no longer suffered from Quake Lag or multi-chassis multi-link MPIP instabilities. However, 3Com continued in their ways and didn't learn anything from the situation, and here we are, 2 years later is *exactly* the same situation, just with a different card and 3Com is making the same *exact* mistake. 3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the importance of installed base. 3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the importance (or economics, apparently!) of reasonable availability of support contracts.
Well...here we are again...and here's the situation again. 3Com either resolves this situation to my satisfaction, or they loose me as a customer, period. Its the same ultimatum as two years ago with NETServers. This time, however, there will be no silencing of me with the deal. Whatever deal I get better be one that 3Com/CommWorks is willing for everyone to know about, because I will not be silent on it.
-- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Lance Eves
I would have to agree with Mark on this. Cisco has EOL'd products that still do the job that they were originally installed to do, but was not cost effective to update to handle the advances in technology. Lucent has done the same. Technology changes daily and it becomes more difficult to support the older hardware and make it work with the changes in technology.
As I pointed out in my previous message...Cisco still *sells* the 2500 routers, and they even run CEF now! There is no way on earth that you can compare 3Com/CommWorks support of old equipment with Cisco. Cisco is orders of magnitude ahead of 3Com/CommWorks on this count.
The 2 times that I've needed support from 3Com, I received the assistance that I needed.
When you can afford the extortionate rates for support these days from 3Com (or during your 90 days of free support when you buy new equipment) you can get great help from 3Com. That's largely thanks to the likes of Mike Wronski, Krish, Chuck Stace, Dominic Ciresi, and others (Hi guys!). These guys are great at supporting the product, I have the utmost respect for them. I have absolutely zero respect for Al Huefner who seems to be doing his best to run 3Com/CommWorks into the ground by totally screwing their customers with support contracts. I'll say it again...Al is, in my estimation, personally responsible for the loss of the bulk of the Total Control customers that 3Com/Commworks has lost over the past couple of years. If I were his boss, I would have fired him long ago! -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Lance Eves
I would have to agree with Mark on this. Cisco has EOL'd products that still do the job that they were originally installed to do, but was not cost effective to update to handle the advances in technology. Lucent has done the same. Technology changes daily and it becomes more difficult to support the older hardware and make it work with the changes in technology.
As I pointed out in my previous message...Cisco still *sells* the 2500 routers, and they even run CEF now! There is no way on earth that you can compare 3Com/CommWorks support of old equipment with Cisco. Cisco is orders of magnitude ahead of 3Com/CommWorks on this count.
Yeah... so??? That's a router. How much has v.35 interfaces changed over the last 10 years. How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last 10 years? Now, take the proper comparison (not one that just fits your cause), such as the Cisco 5200, which will not support v.92, and we have a real life comparison of a like product. A comparison of a technology that changes every year. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Curtis V. Shambeau | curt.shambeau@voyager.net | Sr Vice President | | CoreComm, LTD, formerly Voyager.net and ExecPC - Wisconsin Office | | "Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others" | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Curt Shambeau
Yeah... so??? That's a router. How much has v.35 interfaces changed over the last 10 years. How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last 10 years?
You're saying router technology hasn't changed much over the past 10 years? What color is the sky in your world? ;)
Now, take the proper comparison (not one that just fits your cause), such as the Cisco 5200, which will not support v.92, and we have a real life comparison of a like product. A comparison of a technology that changes every year.
OK...its not a direct comparison...but its still good. Cisco 2500's don't/can't support the latest and greatest stuff due to technological limitations. But you'll notice that Cisco didn't just drop the product on the floor. If this'd been 3Com/CommWorks, they'd probably disavow any knowledge of the product ever *existing*, let alone support it to the extent that the technology allows. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Curt Shambeau
Yeah... so??? That's a router. How much has v.35 interfaces changed over the last 10 years. How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last 10 years?
You're saying router technology hasn't changed much over the past 10 years? What color is the sky in your world? ;)
Ummm.... Today it's kinda blue-grey. 8*) Geez, we even had some snow flurries today... Cold nasty day. Anyway... The thought I was trying to get across is that the interfaces available to that router support technologies that have not changed in a LONG time. T1 lines have not changed, 10Base-T ethernet hasn't changed, v.35 serial interfaces have not changed, ISDN BRI hasn't changed. I'm not saying routers have not changed... I'm saying that routers *IN THIS CLASS* haven't changed too much.
If this'd been 3Com/CommWorks, they'd probably disavow any knowledge of the product ever *existing*, let alone support it to the extent that the technology allows.
Can't deny that. I'm guessing when the 26xx series came out, 3COM would have dropped the 25xx. Do I think that is a bad thing? Not really. I still use 2500's in our network, although most have been replaced with 2600's. I still use quad modems in our network, but most have been replaced with HDM's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Curtis V. Shambeau | curt.shambeau@voyager.net | Sr Vice President | | CoreComm, LTD, formerly Voyager.net and ExecPC - Wisconsin Office | | "Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others" | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Jeff Mcadams wrote:
Also sprach Curt Shambeau
Yeah... so??? That's a router. How much has v.35 interfaces changed over the last 10 years. How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last 10 years?
You're saying router technology hasn't changed much over the past 10 years? What color is the sky in your world? ;)
Now, take the proper comparison (not one that just fits your cause), such as the Cisco 5200, which will not support v.92, and we have a real life comparison of a like product. A comparison of a technology that changes every year.
OK...its not a direct comparison...but its still good. Cisco 2500's don't/can't support the latest and greatest stuff due to technological limitations. But you'll notice that Cisco didn't just drop the product on the floor.
If this'd been 3Com/CommWorks, they'd probably disavow any knowledge of the product ever *existing*, let alone support it to the extent that the technology allows.
How about the Livingston PM3? There are quite a few of those out there and Lucent stopped software development for that product, which means no V.92. I'd have to say there's as many small ISP's with 3Com gear as PM3's. Also, don't you think those people who spent hundreds of thousands on Cisco AS5800's aren't bitching that they will never get V.92 without spending and additional hundreds of thousands on new modems? We all made choices, when 3Com offered to take my Quads when I was purchasing new ports, I boxed them up and mailed them back faster than you can say "problem avoided." Now let's see what they do with V.92 in terms of cost. -Ron GLISnet, Inc. 810/786.0454 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Ronald Kushner
How about the Livingston PM3? There are quite a few of those out there and Lucent stopped software development for that product, which means no V.92. I'd have to say there's as many small ISP's with 3Com gear as PM3's.
Yup, and I just got off the phone with Tom Goodman who told me that he talked to a large number of people that were out to get Lucent's blood for that move. Part of the problem here is that the Total Control stuff...including the quads...were *always* sold with the idea of being software upgradeable to the latest and greatest. Now we're finding that it "software upgradeable, unless its inconvenient for 3Com/CommWorks to do so."
We all made choices, when 3Com offered to take my Quads when I was purchasing new ports, I boxed them up and mailed them back faster than you can say "problem avoided." Now let's see what they do with V.92 in terms of cost.
Yup, and I took advantage of that deal as much as I could, but for those of us that already had a large installed base of equipment, we didn't have enough equipment purchases during that time period to upgrade all of our equipment. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Yeah... so??? That's a router. How much has v.35 interfaces changed over the last 10 years. How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last 10 years?
Is 3com stuff carrier grade equipment? If so, my phone companies are running switches more than 5 years old. I don't think we have to support 300 and 1200 baud modems anymore and LCP could be a lot leaner. As for v.92, I would settle for faster connections and live without the fancy voice features. Releasing code for EOL-ed boxes would be a stroke of genius. If you are depending on "trade secrets" from five years ago in this business, you are in trouble. If you are relying on 5 year old open standards you are probably on the right track. Jim Tarvid - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Jim Tarvid
Yeah... so??? That's a router. How much has v.35 interfaces changed over the last 10 years. How much as 10base-T ethernet changed over the last 10 years?
Is 3com stuff carrier grade equipment?
That's what they claim. The Total Control was part of the Carrier Group within 3Com before CommWorks was spun off.
If so, my phone companies are running switches more than 5 years old.
Shoot...BellSouth is running swithes that are 20 years old in some cases.
I don't think we have to support 300 and 1200 baud modems anymore and LCP could be a lot leaner.
x2 could certainly be ditched as far as I'm concerned assuming this is a memory constraint.
As for v.92, I would settle for faster connections and live without the fancy voice features.
Yup, and I certainly won't complain if v.59 is not ever available for quads. I'd love to have it, but v.92 is the only "must-have" upgrade really needed.
Releasing code for EOL-ed boxes would be a stroke of genius. If you are depending on "trade secrets" from five years ago in this business, you are in trouble. If you are relying on 5 year old open standards you are probably on the right track.
The problem with open sourcing here is that there are patent issues with just about any modem code. Reading the linmodems list and web site, any modem faster than...I think they said 9600baud...has patent constraints on it. Like the comparison with the cisco 2500 though, just because a piece of equipment can't do all of the latest and greatest doesn't mean it has to be EOL'ed. *This*, with the possible exception of support issues, is probably the A#1 thing that 3Com/CommWorks needs to learn. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Mind you, I've got thousands of ports of Quad-Card chassis out in the network, but I'm forced to agree. The whole computer industry is about upgrades and changes. It's been that way since the early IBM XT, and it will be that way for a LONG time to come. ALL things in your network should be seen as a 4-5 year investment. Beyond that is just not being realistic. I'm not just talking modem chassis, I'm talking everything from wiring to servers to storage to you-name-it. Everything at an ISP needs upgrades to stay current, and to stay strong. Those who don't upgrade sell their ISP to somebody that will - I know. Voyager bought probably 35 ISP's in the past, and just about every one of them needed major upgrades, which is why they got out. I'm not thrilled with the fact that quad cards are EOL. I didn't get any fantastic deal on Netserver -> ARC upgrades, but I did it anyway. You know what... it probably paid for itself many times over in space savings and administration costs. Quad cards were great in their day, and they are still good for small POPs, but IMO, I can't blame 3COM for ending development on them. I'll also say again that I doubt there is enough memory in the Quad cards to support another upgrade, given that they pulled things out of the code just to get v92 and X2 working. It *would* be nice if 3COM would just answer the question of "WHY" -------------------------------------------------------
With all due respect, how long should 3Com support old products? How long should any manufacturer support old products? At what price? How much would those of you who don't have support contracts pay for a V.92 upgrade for the quads? Like you, 3Com's goal is to make a profit, and unless they can recoup the development cost, it doesn't make sense to invest in the upgrade.
Technology changes. Should Microsoft continue to support the 486 with Win2K? How about the 386? It's not even clear that the quad modem cards have enough memory or CPU or that the rest of the hardware will support V.92.
I realize that there are a lot of ISPs that are using the quads, but it's simply not realistic to expect 3Com or any other manufacturer to support old equipment ad infinitum.
Let's get real. 3Com is not doing anything different from most any other manufacturer in this business. Any box you buy will be obsolete in just a few years, and it's hard to move forward if you carry too much baggage from the past around with you.
Mark Levy FSInet
From: Jeff Mcadams [mailto:jeffm@iglou.com] Yeah...and EOL'ing the quads was a collosally bad mistake. They need to be "unEOL'ed". They pulled this same exact crap two years ago with the NETServer to HiPer Arc transition and EOL'ing of the NETServer, two years before that, it was the dual modem cards. What's it going to be two years from now? Either we need to get 3Com/CommWorks to realize that installed customer base is important, or they're going to loose us as a customer.
I know Paul, they've already lost you, and I *certainly* don't fault you for that decision, and I'm almost there myself, but I'm trying for one last ditch effort here.
3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what sort of installed base in still out there for thier equipment. I bet Al and Irfan barely remember the dual modem cards (if they remember them at all)...I still have several in production use sitting at the bottom of a rack, never being noticed or messed with at all until we start getting busy signals on that hunt group and we go and physically reseat them to reset them.
3Com/CommWorks clearly has no clue what their issues are with support contracts.
OK...screw it...I'm gonna tell this, its been two years. Two years ago, with the NETServer being EOL'ed, and the transition to HiPer Arcs, I raised about the same issues that I'm raising here, with about the same response initially. After screaming and yelling about the situation for a couple of weeks (I think it was) I was contacted about getting NETServers swapped for HiPer Arcs...this was the doing of the sales side of things within 3Com at the time...this wasn't a deal that 3Com as a whole corporate body was doing...this was a special deal that the sales folks there made with IgLou because we made the ultimatum, "Either you resolve this issue to our satisfaction, or you loose us as a customer." They resolved it. They did a 1 for 1 trade of HiPer Arcs for NETServers, at no cost to IgLou. The deal, however, was that I couldn't tell anyone how this came about because it was a special deal they were doing for me and they couldn't have everyone coming to them demanding the same thing.
So, for those of you that remember the NETServer to HiPer Arc thing, if any of you wondered why I suddenly went silent on that issue (or nearly so anyway), that's why.
So...what was the result of that...I got my HiPer Arcs, and I no longer suffered from Quake Lag or multi-chassis multi-link MPIP instabilities. However, 3Com continued in their ways and didn't learn anything from the situation, and here we are, 2 years later is *exactly* the same situation, just with a different card and 3Com is making the same *exact* mistake. 3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the importance of installed base. 3Com/CommWorks still hasn't learned of the importance (or economics, apparently!) of reasonable availability of support contracts.
Well...here we are again...and here's the situation again. 3Com either resolves this situation to my satisfaction, or they loose me as a customer, period. Its the same ultimatum as two years ago with NETServers. This time, however, there will be no silencing of me with the deal. Whatever deal I get better be one that 3Com/CommWorks is willing for everyone to know about, because I will not be silent on it.
-- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Curtis V. Shambeau | curt.shambeau@voyager.net | Sr Vice President | | CoreComm, LTD, formerly Voyager.net and ExecPC - Wisconsin Office | | "Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others" | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Quad cards were great in their day, and they are still good for small POPs, but IMO, I can't blame 3COM for ending development on them.
I just got a deal from another ISP on a TC1000 loaded with quad cards and I jumped on it for the one community we must use trunk lines because PRI's aren't available there. It's seems such a waste to use an expensive Hiper DSP card on non-PRI circuits. I also have a support contract with both 3COM and Cisco and even telephoned 3COM to ask a techie's opinion as if I should even get this unit and if it could be added to my contract! No problem, now less than a month later, I'm finding out that I won't be able to upgrade it beyond v.90. Oh well, back to focusing on PRI circuits and I guess, we'll just have to let those small communities suffer with inferior phone service and remote access equpment :^( I discovered the Quad cards a great 3COM recipe for rural access. Now, we'll have no choice but to find other options for our rural communities.... Best 'net regards, Joe -- Joe Rinehart, Operations Designer Config.Com, Inc. 124 North Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 T: 330.297.9595 F:330.296.4005 H:330.298.4396 http://joerinehart.com/ mailto:joe@config.com finger:joe@config.com - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Curt Shambeau
ALL things in your network should be seen as a 4-5 year investment.
I'm glad you agree with me Curt. I bought some of my quads about 2 years ago.
I'll also say again that I doubt there is enough memory in the Quad cards to support another upgrade, given that they pulled things out of the code just to get v92 and X2 working.
They didn't pull anything out of the quads to get v.90 and x2 working. I don't say that this *isn't* the problem with v.92, but I'm *extremely* skeptical of it. Shoot...I'd say pull x2 out if you need to make room for v.92. x2 never worked very well anyway.
It *would* be nice if 3COM would just answer the question of "WHY"
Amen there. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Curt Shambeau wrote:
ALL things in your network should be seen as a 4-5 year investment. Beyond that is just not being realistic.
What if the 4-5 year old equipment (actually my quads are more like 3.5 years old) does a better job than the brand new stuff. I still have a hunt dedicated to quads for a mess of mac customers, and other Rockwell oddities that just cannot connect to DSP cards. Period. I appreciate the new form factor of the DSP cards, but I'm still not convinced that they actually perform better than the older product... Charles
------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Curtis V. Shambeau | curt.shambeau@voyager.net | Sr Vice President | | CoreComm, LTD, formerly Voyager.net and ExecPC - Wisconsin Office | | "Those who can't laugh at themselves leave the job to others" |
- To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
Also sprach Mark E. Levy
With all due respect, how long should 3Com support old products?
For a product that has no real inherent flaws? A *heck* of a lot longer than 4 years! You do realize that Cisco still *SELLS* their 2500 routers, right? They are, what, 10 years old now? They haven't even reached End Of Sales on those, let along End Of Life. Sure...they don't support the latest and greatest, because of technical reasons. If there is a technical reason that the quads can't support v.92...then I'll be satisified. I seriously doubt that to be the case though.
How long should any manufacturer support old products?
Cisco seems to EOL products at least 3 years after EOS. Sometimes longer.
At what price? How much would those of you who don't have support contracts pay for a V.92 upgrade for the quads?
I would be more than happy to pay for support contracts from 3Com that would include v.92 upgrades for quads. I don't particularly want to support the quads at the same level as DSPs and Arcs, that's goofy. But then, that's also one of the major problems with 3Com/CommWorks support contract policies...you can't cover different equipment at different levels. If the pricing and policies were reasonable, IgLou would most likely get 8x5xnbd support on quads, dual-pri cards, and the base chassis, with 24x7x4hour support on DSPs and Arcs. Instead, with 3Com/CommWorks policies, if we want to cover Arcs with 24x7x4hour support, we have to cover our quads with the same. Even though 3Com/CommWorks has EOL'ed them! We have to pay for them anyway!
Like you, 3Com's goal is to make a profit, and unless they can recoup the development cost, it doesn't make sense to invest in the upgrade.
And what I'm saying is that if 3Com/CommWorks doesn't start supporting their old equipment better, then they won't be selling any of their new equipment. I am *NOT* going to go through this same thing 2 years from now with...say...DSPs.
Technology changes. Should Microsoft continue to support the 486 with Win2K?
*Please* don't tell me you're holding up M$ as a paragon of reasonable service and support.
How about the 386? It's not even clear that the quad modem cards have enough memory or CPU or that the rest of the hardware will support V.92.
Then why on God's green earth hasn't 3Com/CommWorks *said* this. If this is truly the case, then I'm going to be a lot less vehement about this situation. What was it...3 years ago when we presented the Top 10 Gripe list to 3Com? What was the core of a lot of those issues? 3Com *SUCKS* at communicating with its customers. Gee...looks like that hasn't changed at all.
I realize that there are a lot of ISPs that are using the quads, but it's simply not realistic to expect 3Com or any other manufacturer to support old equipment ad infinitum.
And you'll notice that I'm not demanding support for the dual cards (even if they are newer than Cisco 2500's), which, again I'll point out, I still have in service. -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456 - To unsubscribe to usr-tc, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe usr-tc" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.
participants (8)
-
Charles Sprickman -
Curt Shambeau -
Jeff Mcadams -
Jim Tarvid -
Joe Rinehart -
Lance Eves -
Mark E. Levy -
Ronald Kushner