If you could not have Ruckus would you cope with having Cisco wireless?
Cisco all the way if im offered it - but ruckus if budget is an issue!
Surely it can't be cost, the Cisco one would be far more expensive.
Personally I'd miss the BeamFlex Antennae :-(
we have cisco stuff here can't say its a problem but we only have 100mb connections to each AP so 20 laptops 1 100mb connection is not good!
I've read a few good comparisons online and Ruckus seems to out perform Cisco kit, it's also reliable kit so why Cisco every time?
Beamforming: The Best WiFi You?ve Never Seen : Open-Mouthed Amazement
Ignoring the cost factor between Ruckus and Cisco kit, the Cisco stuff has a couple of disadvantages:
* More complicated to configure
* [Generally] more APs are required for coverage
* PITA licensing from Cisco - every little bit needs another license, plus more licenses as you expand
Nobody ever got fired for buying Cisco.
That's just an old saying. I have no idea if it's true, but I've never seen it.
And Cisco trained techs the most numerous, easiest to find and most affordable.
Of course, Cisco is like Fluke. More expensive than 3 ex-wives and a boat.
I think you want to look at TCO. Total cost of ownership over a defined period of time.
The Cisco wireless kit isn't in the same league as their switches and routers. I'd much prefer Ruckus, but I could live with Cisco if there was no choice. But, as others have stated, the Cisco kit would generally be more expensive than Ruckus, so I can't see the predicament being one of money?
We dumped Cisco for Ruckus. The Cisco kit was more expensive, and not as good. You get far more coverage with Ruckus than Cisco with less access points. Im not anti Cisco all our switches are Catalyst 3750X for the edge and 4500X for the core. The Cisco wireless isn't as good as other brands.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)