[cisco-voip] 79xx vs. 99xx

[Erick Wellnitz]

Wes makes great points.  We must remember, we are dealing with what
ammounts to an IT system now, far removed from the old PBX model.  It is
going to give us the same headaches other 'backward compatible' systems
give us.

I rolled out close to 500 9971 phones on 8.0(3) a while back.  The only
real complaints from the users was the responsiveness (once Wes helped to
track down our other issues).  Tech staff immediately noticed the 9971 felt
'cheaper' and less solid than the 79XX series.  There were also a
significant number of RMAs compared to the 79XX series - probably 15 out of
500 where RMA rate of the 7975s we rolled out was 1 in 500.

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Wes Sisk <wsisk at cisco.com> wrote:

> Everyone has an opinion so I'll share mine as well.  This is my personal
> opinion based on my experience. Note: personal.
>
> The 99xx phones are a completely different user experience.  That comes
> with a learning curve for both users and administrators.  Different is not
> inherently bad. It is an attempt to evolve and usually that is good.
>
> Otherwise there is one Cisco practice that is notoriously problematic.
>  When new phones are released support is "backported" to older CUCM
> versions.  Technically this gets phones working with older CUCM versions.
> However, the integration is more "rudimentary functionality" than "smooth
> integration".  If you are using the newest endpoints then you really need
> to be on the newest version of call control for smooth integration.  This
> is not unique to Cisco or even IT; it exists everywhere.
>
> Example: A new mobile phone may support bluetooth, A2DP, and high quality
> audio. A new car may not support this or may only offer an analog
> connection for a headset jack.  Analog through the headset jack provides
> basic functionality but it falls short of a smooth integration. A car or
> car stereo upgrade is required to get full functionality.
>
> From a customer, serviceability, and supportability perspective we have
> challenged the practice of backporting. It causes a degraded user
> experience, degraded admin experience, and complicates upgrades.  In the
> end the value of basic functionality on older versions outweighs the loss
> of features.
>
> Circumstances alter cases.  Your case is unique and you get to make the
> decision about what is appropriate for your organization given
> environmental limitations.
>
> In the larger environment support for the newest endpoints works best with
> the latest call control.  Attempting anything else is really swimming
> upstream.
>
> /wes
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2012, at 8:09 PM, Frank Arrasmith wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>  just want to poll the room regarding IP Phones they are using.   We
> recently deployed a large # of 9951/9971 phones, and encountered some
> pretty serious bugs(that dont have a fix/workaround yet).  Anybody else
> deploying these?  Are you having bugs in the Call Manager version you are
> running?  Other than the integrated video, what benefits do you see in
> them?. I have to say, after working on the 7900 series(sccp) for some time,
> with fairly rock solid performance, I am certainly not impressed with the
> 99xx phones.  I think they are particularly hard to use(compared to the
> 7900 phones) for someone with Cisco experience, and practically impossible
> for the average Joe. Maybe I am missing the big picture.  Has anyone seen
> exceptional benefits from using them? The decision to deploy these was
> above my head , and supposedly in part to the 7965's going end of life.  Is
> that true, or did we get suckered by our VAR(i couldnt find an EOL notice).
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20120306/3f499416/attachment.html>