HP Vs IBM

[mrmdear]

I have just this morning had a quote for equivalent IBM and HP servers. I was amazed to see that IBM came out cheaper. Now since my first day working in IT support (7 Years Ago) I have only ever worked with HP servers. There support is amazing and I could not find any reason to think about moving away until now.

 

I will say both servers where with 4 hour response hardware support. Also the difference in price was just over £800.00

 

What I was looking for is if anyone has had and good or bad experiences with ether products. If they could share it here to try and get a sense of if I would like to change.

[ICTDirect_Dave]

Whilst I can't speak for the newst HP / IBM kit, we do see thousands of servers from both manufacturers that are between 2 and five years old.

 

From those machines the HP servers have a FAR lower failure rate compared to the IBMs, unless something has changed recently I'd say stick with HP.

 

If you'd like me to drop you some very tempting pricing for our refurb HP server's to use as comparison I'd be happy to. I'm sure I can get a competitive bundle with a decent warranty that should look nice!: )

[detjo]

Not that this is necessarily anything to go by, but ...

 

My opinion of IBM hardware changed when working there, and I discovered they prefer to use Intel CPU's to their own and HP for pretty much all other hardware.

IBM are great at R&D but I'd rather stick with HP hardware. And I agree, HP support is fantastic - that alone can make it worthwhile.

[rickypike]

+1 for HP Hardware here too, fantastic support and ultra reliable. We run all HP kit (Blade Servers, Switches, SAN etc) - 0 downtime in 3 years!