I'm looking into IPO V4 for our phone system solution, but don't know much about it... thought I would ask here to see if anyone had any opinions either way on it, and how it stacks up compared to other systems (like Cisco CME), or if it would be a good fit considering the size of the setup we're looking for. We'll be setting up 28 digital phones and 3 ip phones remote home locations.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Opinions on IPO V4
- Thread starter JD5241
- Start date
4.0 is a good version
what i read about cisco is not good
compaired to the cisco ,avaya is way better
4.0 is new and has some bugs but every system has its bugs
ACA - Implement IP Office
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
what i read about cisco is not good
compaired to the cisco ,avaya is way better
4.0 is new and has some bugs but every system has its bugs
ACA - Implement IP Office
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
- Thread starter
- #3
ip phones ,digital phones, analog phones
you can use them all
can cisco ?
price
stability
just a couple
ACA - Implement IP Office
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
you can use them all
can cisco ?
price
stability
just a couple
ACA - Implement IP Office
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!
I've not installed 4.0 yet, and probably won't. the BP I currently work for is moving to all Cisco solutions.
But I can say the Avaya IP Office product line was popular here, and it works very well for the customers I have installed. From what I've read about 4.0 it's no worse then the GA releases of the past. But I've always waited for the second iteration as a general rule but that's my personal preference.
I won't try to comment specifically on Cisco (and start a augument about who's better blah blah blah) but I've worked on many different manufacturers over the past years and on the whole most meet the customers expectations, WITH ONE CAVEAT, when they are implemented properly and installed by quality people. You truly get what you pay for when it comes to implementation services
But I can say the Avaya IP Office product line was popular here, and it works very well for the customers I have installed. From what I've read about 4.0 it's no worse then the GA releases of the past. But I've always waited for the second iteration as a general rule but that's my personal preference.
I won't try to comment specifically on Cisco (and start a augument about who's better blah blah blah) but I've worked on many different manufacturers over the past years and on the whole most meet the customers expectations, WITH ONE CAVEAT, when they are implemented properly and installed by quality people. You truly get what you pay for when it comes to implementation services
PlatinumGuy
Instructor
aarenot, we are waiting for you.
you know you want to.
ACA - IP Office Implement
ACS - IP Office Implement
ACE - IP Office Implement
you know you want to.
ACA - IP Office Implement
ACS - IP Office Implement
ACE - IP Office Implement
I don't know how to take that sizbut. But, OK, here's my take on 4.0. It's great. Seriously. But to sell it you have to know what you are getting into. Same goes for the buyer. I see a lot of people post on this site that don't have a clue what they are talking about or what they are doing.
4.0 is not for those...individuals.
However, if the person who is selling it understands it, then you will have no problems.
I have put in about 15 4.0s. For every single one I put the programming to the test before I put it in the field. Every installation has been a success.
Now upgrading existing customers is a different story. That I won't do unless absolutely necessary and the customer is willing to pay ALL the costs involved. Not just the time to do the upgrade, but all the hand-holding after as well.
For a new install, GO FOR IT. Be sure you understand your needs and Make sure the vendor understands them as well.
I'll put it in for you JD5241, and you WILL be a satisfied customer.
4.0 is not for those...individuals.
However, if the person who is selling it understands it, then you will have no problems.
I have put in about 15 4.0s. For every single one I put the programming to the test before I put it in the field. Every installation has been a success.
Now upgrading existing customers is a different story. That I won't do unless absolutely necessary and the customer is willing to pay ALL the costs involved. Not just the time to do the upgrade, but all the hand-holding after as well.
For a new install, GO FOR IT. Be sure you understand your needs and Make sure the vendor understands them as well.
I'll put it in for you JD5241, and you WILL be a satisfied customer.
But Ron, I quote you...
"The joy of 4.0 just keeps growing. The happiness in me is welling up, I am about to burst in delight. Except for all the things I friggin' hate about it."
Or how about your thread... "Working Title: Stupid Things About 4.0"
Oh bless my stupidly elephantine memory.
But to give due praise, you've made plain that your key issue with 4.0 (if we exclude VMPro features) is around the upgrading of existing configs. And much praise for your emphasis of the good practice of building and testing configs before going to site.
Now what bait for a lesser spotted Aarenot?
"The joy of 4.0 just keeps growing. The happiness in me is welling up, I am about to burst in delight. Except for all the things I friggin' hate about it."
Or how about your thread... "Working Title: Stupid Things About 4.0"
Oh bless my stupidly elephantine memory.
But to give due praise, you've made plain that your key issue with 4.0 (if we exclude VMPro features) is around the upgrading of existing configs. And much praise for your emphasis of the good practice of building and testing configs before going to site.
Now what bait for a lesser spotted Aarenot?
JD5241,
From others comments, you can assume I will tell it like I see it. Some also think they know my thoughts, and can predict my responses about 4.0. That being said, here goes.
I can only recomend implementors of the IPO, not the IPO itself, or any of its releases. As with any technology system it is only as good as the system engineer, and project manager. When the engineer, and the PM are one in the same that is in my opinion the best scenario. With the right system engineer/PM they can make the system do things which the manufacturer cannot make it do.
Release 3.2 in an above mediocre engineers hands can be done easily, 4.0 not so much so. That is true of any new release of software for any software based technology including all the other system manufacturers you mentioned. They all have issues with software bugs, and more so the closer they are to the new feature set release, and less the farther they are down the maint release path before the next new feature set release comes out. 4.0 feature sets are great, I expect the maint release to make 4.0 a long way toward the same scenario as 3.2 in regard to the caliber of engineer it takes to implement easily.
Most of my complaints about 4.0 are about the profitability of implementing the release in comparison to the 3.2 release. The commitment of the manufacturer to provide the implementor with an easily managable product with predictable outcomes, and reasonable investments to bring the product to the market in a satisfactory condition. They should give the implementor a rebate if a GA release is implemented on it, or as probably the experienced implementors do charge more for a 4.0 implement.
With the conditions mentioned above met, I reccomend any curently supported release of the IPO.
Suprised anyone?
From others comments, you can assume I will tell it like I see it. Some also think they know my thoughts, and can predict my responses about 4.0. That being said, here goes.
I can only recomend implementors of the IPO, not the IPO itself, or any of its releases. As with any technology system it is only as good as the system engineer, and project manager. When the engineer, and the PM are one in the same that is in my opinion the best scenario. With the right system engineer/PM they can make the system do things which the manufacturer cannot make it do.
Release 3.2 in an above mediocre engineers hands can be done easily, 4.0 not so much so. That is true of any new release of software for any software based technology including all the other system manufacturers you mentioned. They all have issues with software bugs, and more so the closer they are to the new feature set release, and less the farther they are down the maint release path before the next new feature set release comes out. 4.0 feature sets are great, I expect the maint release to make 4.0 a long way toward the same scenario as 3.2 in regard to the caliber of engineer it takes to implement easily.
Most of my complaints about 4.0 are about the profitability of implementing the release in comparison to the 3.2 release. The commitment of the manufacturer to provide the implementor with an easily managable product with predictable outcomes, and reasonable investments to bring the product to the market in a satisfactory condition. They should give the implementor a rebate if a GA release is implemented on it, or as probably the experienced implementors do charge more for a 4.0 implement.
With the conditions mentioned above met, I reccomend any curently supported release of the IPO.
Suprised anyone?
I still don't know how to take you sizbut. I speak the truth in those posts. You did not point out my other posts where I praise the product. I admit, when there is something I don't like about the IPO, I have no problem letting everyone know.
Avaya monitors this forum, so I let them have it!
They do a lot of just plain stupid things in IPO. For instance when using visual voice and not using trusted numbers, you have to enter the password twice. Does that make any sense? No. It cannot be defended. Yet I am told it is spec by Tier 3.
I am flattered. I am not often quoted. And two in one post to boot!
Sizbut, please share you feeling on 4.0.
Avaya monitors this forum, so I let them have it!
They do a lot of just plain stupid things in IPO. For instance when using visual voice and not using trusted numbers, you have to enter the password twice. Does that make any sense? No. It cannot be defended. Yet I am told it is spec by Tier 3.
I am flattered. I am not often quoted. And two in one post to boot!
Sizbut, please share you feeling on 4.0.
sizbut,
Please explain what "a lesser spotted Aarenot" means? I am too seasoned, fat, bald, and teen agered in the home to be easily offended, so no worries, just curious.
Platinumguy,
And with the fruit of the tree of patience I see too, that is so spiritual of you, LOL. You do know me though to some degree, I do want to help people. I also think the type that can handle the GA releases cannot be scared off by anyone, because they do not settle for "it cannot be done", or "they cannot do it", even if they come to that preliminary conclusion, they then do whatever it takes to get it done.
JD5241,
If cisco had what is it 80% or better of the fortune 500 companies in their stable of implemented systems like Avaya, expecially considering they are in the server rooms of probably 80% or better of them with data components, and or services, I might consider cisco a competitor on the same caliber. Or if they had the leading implemented SMBS IP system, or the leading phone system implemeted in North America, or in the world. Or if they were able to trace their R&D back in technology to the guy who said something to the effect of Watson come here I need you.
The IPO sweet spot is directly where you are sitting with the parameters you mention.
Please explain what "a lesser spotted Aarenot" means? I am too seasoned, fat, bald, and teen agered in the home to be easily offended, so no worries, just curious.
Platinumguy,
And with the fruit of the tree of patience I see too, that is so spiritual of you, LOL. You do know me though to some degree, I do want to help people. I also think the type that can handle the GA releases cannot be scared off by anyone, because they do not settle for "it cannot be done", or "they cannot do it", even if they come to that preliminary conclusion, they then do whatever it takes to get it done.
JD5241,
If cisco had what is it 80% or better of the fortune 500 companies in their stable of implemented systems like Avaya, expecially considering they are in the server rooms of probably 80% or better of them with data components, and or services, I might consider cisco a competitor on the same caliber. Or if they had the leading implemented SMBS IP system, or the leading phone system implemeted in North America, or in the world. Or if they were able to trace their R&D back in technology to the guy who said something to the effect of Watson come here I need you.
The IPO sweet spot is directly where you are sitting with the parameters you mention.
jml,
Excellent, I would love to hear about that experience, since you know the IPO as well. Let me know if you can about a few things like how many moving parts in their full system, including hard drives, fans, etc. Just to know the comparison on mechanical failure points. If you are on a new feature release like 4.0 or established like 3.2, cost vs. Avaya, etc. How many servers it is dependent on, that kind of stuff. This should be interesting.
Excellent, I would love to hear about that experience, since you know the IPO as well. Let me know if you can about a few things like how many moving parts in their full system, including hard drives, fans, etc. Just to know the comparison on mechanical failure points. If you are on a new feature release like 4.0 or established like 3.2, cost vs. Avaya, etc. How many servers it is dependent on, that kind of stuff. This should be interesting.
PlatinumGuy
Instructor
Exactly, it has been a bit of a bummer but if you have taken any time out to RTFM and not just gone to site with an IP500 under your arm and called your distributor when you get there then you stand a good chance of all being well.
Nobody likes workarounds but sometimes you have to do it, with v4 you may even have had to do it more than you cared to.
I agree that pre release testing may leave a bit to be desired.
ACA - IP Office Implement
ACS - IP Office Implement
ACE - IP Office Implement
Nobody likes workarounds but sometimes you have to do it, with v4 you may even have had to do it more than you cared to.
I agree that pre release testing may leave a bit to be desired.
ACA - IP Office Implement
ACS - IP Office Implement
ACE - IP Office Implement
Platinum,
The thing is, most of the work arounds will not be found by FRTFM in the first place. When I have called for support, most of the time they do not have a work around, I figure one out myself while on the phone with them, and tell them how I did it. Or, I figure it out while waiting in the Q, or waiting for the callback from the message left after being in the Q. I still go through the motions with getting the ticket number because I had to have the ticket number to justify the time to the boss that I spent working on an issue that should not have been an issue in the first place. Honestly, he thinks," what the F hell is F taking so F long, it is a F supported F feature, it should F be F 1,F 2,F 3, and F out the F door F A". He does not know it doesn't work, nor does the customer in front of whom you choose to either explain the CQ from Avaya if they even admit/know it doesn't work, because it does not, or you let them think you just do not know what you are doing. Then you look for a work around in TFM, beyond that calling support is your only obligation. OK, so we all do way more than that, but it is not our obligation it is our obsession!
Work arounds do not come from RTFM, they are not in TFM, and the guys who come up with the work arounds are guys who think outside of RTFM. The other place I get work arounds is here, and quite frankly I see many which guys on here figure out themselves, and pass along, many that they get from other techs, and pass along, many that they get from their vendor, and pass along but somehow they never get to my vendor, or to TFM. It would be nice if I got my work arounds from RTFM, or RTFammendedM, when they find work arounds. It just doesn't seem to get down the pipe to Avaya, maybe until they read about the work arounds here on TT's? I think they get most of their work arounds from here.
I am a bit tongue in cheek here platinum, but hey it is not really fair to blame anyone for not knowing the work arounds if they are not in TFM, am I right? How many known, documented work arounds were there the day 4.0 hit distribution?
Also, there should be a link in Manager that leads to the detailed work around resource for the release currently loaded in Manager. I do not mean the CQ page that is just a list of known issues, and wished correction dates, but serious list of work arounds for known issues. Or maybe a link to this forum?
The thing is, most of the work arounds will not be found by FRTFM in the first place. When I have called for support, most of the time they do not have a work around, I figure one out myself while on the phone with them, and tell them how I did it. Or, I figure it out while waiting in the Q, or waiting for the callback from the message left after being in the Q. I still go through the motions with getting the ticket number because I had to have the ticket number to justify the time to the boss that I spent working on an issue that should not have been an issue in the first place. Honestly, he thinks," what the F hell is F taking so F long, it is a F supported F feature, it should F be F 1,F 2,F 3, and F out the F door F A". He does not know it doesn't work, nor does the customer in front of whom you choose to either explain the CQ from Avaya if they even admit/know it doesn't work, because it does not, or you let them think you just do not know what you are doing. Then you look for a work around in TFM, beyond that calling support is your only obligation. OK, so we all do way more than that, but it is not our obligation it is our obsession!
Work arounds do not come from RTFM, they are not in TFM, and the guys who come up with the work arounds are guys who think outside of RTFM. The other place I get work arounds is here, and quite frankly I see many which guys on here figure out themselves, and pass along, many that they get from other techs, and pass along, many that they get from their vendor, and pass along but somehow they never get to my vendor, or to TFM. It would be nice if I got my work arounds from RTFM, or RTFammendedM, when they find work arounds. It just doesn't seem to get down the pipe to Avaya, maybe until they read about the work arounds here on TT's? I think they get most of their work arounds from here.
I am a bit tongue in cheek here platinum, but hey it is not really fair to blame anyone for not knowing the work arounds if they are not in TFM, am I right? How many known, documented work arounds were there the day 4.0 hit distribution?
Also, there should be a link in Manager that leads to the detailed work around resource for the release currently loaded in Manager. I do not mean the CQ page that is just a list of known issues, and wished correction dates, but serious list of work arounds for known issues. Or maybe a link to this forum?
- Status
Similar threads
