[cisco-voip] QoS and Microsoft OCS

[Matt Slaga (US)]

Yes, Scott, you are right on.  When someone says 'free', that means turn up the sensors and watch to see which side of their mouth they are lying from.



-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Matthews
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:16 PM
To: Scott Voll
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] QoS and Microsoft OCS

<marketing>

FWIW in regards to the 'free' licensing from Microsoft - the general
response is that the licensing is a smaller percentage of the TCO than
you might expect, and the pricing isn't that much different.  After
other factors are added is where the Cisco voicemail earns its keep.

</marketing>

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Scott Voll <svoll.voip at gmail.com> wrote:
> Agreement with Ed.
> In education (maybe more verticals) people are (we included) moving from
> Unity to Exchange 2010 for UM.  Exchange 2010 is really cool with the speech
> to text feature.  and I get most of it covered under my Microsoft Site
> licensing vs huge maintenance cost from Cisco.  I've been screaming at Cisco
> since one of my schools moved to UM exchange 2007 about 3 years ago about
> costs...... Cisco has not moved so we are in the process of moving.
> as for CUPS vs OCS we have been using OCS (again largely covered under M$
> site licensing) for IM / presence and loving it.  we will be looking at
> adding the cisco Cookie - moc (or however they spell it) to integrate cisco
> CM with OCS.  From my understanding...... most people like OCS better then
> CUPS for features.  YMMV.
> as for Call control I still like CM for the price (haven't had the talk with
> my AM about UCL) and Contract center express has helped us with all the
> reporting.  CER is a good product also.  If price were no object thou, I
> would go with 911enable.  but since price is...... CER works fine.
> just my 2 cents
> Scott
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff at ocjtech.us> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Matt Slaga (US)
>> <Matt.Slaga at us.didata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > With this said, the next release of OCS (now called 'MCS') will be a
>> > much closer peer-level with Cisco on the voice side.  For now though, the
>> > best of both worlds can be found in integration of the two.
>>
>> I'm curious... we have had CallManager/Unity/Contact Center Express in
>> use for several years (although we don't take advantage of as many
>> features as we could).  We also have Exchange (2003, soon to be 2010)
>> for our main mail system (our Unity server is in a separate AD
>> forest/exchange store although that's likely to change).  There's been
>> some push by our Exchange people to implement some of the OCS
>> functionality for our users.
>>
>> Is there really a benefit to going with OCS vs using what we have with
>> Cisco and maybe adding a CUPS server?  The promised XMPP integration
>> in CUPS 8 looks very interesting to me.  I also need to implement
>> Cisco Emergency Responder soon too.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Ollie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-voip mailing list
>> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

-----------------------------------------
Disclaimer: 

This e-mail communication and any attachments may contain
confidential and privileged information and is for use by the
designated addressee(s) named above only.  If you are not the
intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error and that any use or reproduction of
this email or its contents is strictly prohibited and may be
unlawful.  If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it
from your computer. Thank you.