<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Unfortunately Cisco does not do a good job at posting, in a
very simple and easy to read list (like the compatibility matrix) a list of
features available in each version. You have to read the documentation/release
notes to see the 'what's new' and even then, it's not complete.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Your SE team should be able to provide you with a feature
roadmap which tells you which version of 4.1 that 5.0 is feature equal to and
which new features 5.0 has over that 4.1 version. In addition, they should be
able to tell you what features 4.2 has over 4.1(x). There weren't many, but a
few were nice, like logging out of hunt groups. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Seeing that both 5.0 and 4.2 are on new product hold and there
likely isn't a lot of use out there (including this list which we all use for
support), I'd almost hazard to say stick with 4.1(3)sr3a as a new install. An
upgrade to 4.2 if you need the new features won't be as bad as upgrading from
4.1 to 5.0 and you can probably do that with a bit of testing and a weekend.
Remember, that 4.1(3)sr3a has a lot of bug fixes. If they started creating 4.2 a
while back, what was their base? Are the fixes that are available in sr3a
applied to 4.2? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Lelio
Fulgenzi, B.A.<BR>Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario
N1G 2W1<BR>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX
(JNHN)<BR>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<BR>Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than<BR>50 messages in my inbox at
the end of the day: buffer overrun</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=netfortius@gmail.com
href="mailto:netfortius@gmail.com">Netfortius</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=cisco-voip@puck.nether.net
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, April 13, 2006 12:07
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [cisco-voip] Torn apart by
choices - old or new solutions?Simplyspeaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Lelio,<BR><BR>As far as a .0 version is concerned - we could
not agree more! That stands <BR>true for any product, be it Cisco, M$, or
else. I would avoid this by all <BR>means, if not having a major impact on my
plans, for the future. Even some <BR>Cisco people advise against (for now) -
but I could address this in a delay <BR>in the project, if the other part
(features-based-on) justifies such.<BR><BR>As far as reachness of features
(which is the critical aspect) - you seem to <BR>point out (and most likely
know) something that did not come out of my [very <BR>limited in time]
research, so far, in the line of products, from Cisco, and <BR>that is feature
set associated with one or the other of the two major <BR>solutions. Here are
some links I have been using, as starting point in my <BR>research:<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/products/ps556/c1650/cdccont_0900aecd80410ad6.pdf">http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/products/ps556/c1650/cdccont_0900aecd80410ad6.pdf</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6884/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6884/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80410afb.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80410afb.shtml</A><BR><BR><A
href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6567/products_qanda_item0900aecd80422cb2.shtml</A><BR><BR>On
all of these, there are a lot of references to CM 5.0, and associated
<BR>features. Is there such a thing just for CM 4.2? Or - even better yet - is
<BR>there a feature-by-feature comparison table for the two versions of CM,
and <BR>their associated applications for unified communications, mobility,
<BR>convergence, etc.?<BR><BR>Thank you,<BR>Stefan<BR><BR>On Thursday 13 April
2006 10:37, Lelio Fulgenzi wrote:<BR>> Personally speaking, I'd go with
4.2. 4.x is a more mature product than 5.0<BR>> and I'd never install a
"dot oh" of anything. 4.2 has a very large feature<BR>> set (more than 5.0)
so you have to weigh what you would be losing if you<BR>> don't go with
5.0. SIP is a big one for sure. Appliance model is another.<BR>> There may
be others. The biggest thing you want to look out for when<BR>> migrating
is not so much new features but existing feature replacement and<BR>> of
course stability. I think you would get that with 4.2, not sure about<BR>>
5.0. Look at upgrading in two years to 5.1 or 5.2 when you're not the<BR>>
guinea pig.<BR>><BR>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>-----
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<BR>> Network Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph *
Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<BR>> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX
(JNHN)<BR>>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<BR>>
Sanity First : Number of days with fewer than<BR>> 50 messages in my inbox
at the end of the day: buffer overrun<BR>> -----
Original Message -----<BR>> From:
Netfortius<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR>>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 11:33 AM<BR>> Subject:
[cisco-voip] Torn apart by choices - old or new solutions?<BR>>
Simplyspeaking: CM5.0 or CM4.x<BR>><BR>><BR>> You may
have already gotten used to my last string of questions here,<BR>> which -
I am not hiding it - are part of my attempt to gain info from the<BR>> more
experienced people, on this subject, regarding a project I am working<BR>>
on for deployment of multi-site IPT & VoIP. I have gone into some
details,<BR>> for some questions I had, but now - reading tons of material
every day, I<BR>> have become very worried about the full blown solution
chosen, vs. what is<BR>> being promised just "around the corner". Here is
where I would appreciate<BR>> any comments, of any nature, thoughts,
experience, "what-if" - anything you<BR>> can share about this
subject:<BR>><BR>> Scenario: multi-site deployment of Cisco
CM, with the following<BR>> objectives in mind:<BR>><BR>>
1. Replacement of existing old telephony solution, Nortel-based,<BR>>
consisting of PBX in each location, with Cisco-based IP-based
communication<BR>> systems (and not only one-to-one replacement of phones,
but also steps<BR>> toward unified
communications)<BR>><BR>> 2. Installation of Cisco solution
consisting of:<BR>> a. CM 4.x (advised by Cisco) at the HQ +
Unity integrated with Exchange<BR>> 2003 and a handful of IP phones (major
testers of the technology) and<BR>> integration with existing Nortel PBX at
the HQ (PHASE 1)<BR>> b. IP phones in the remote location
(complete replacement of everything<BR>> old, including PBX) + SRST +
standalone (storage-wise) Unity (PHASE 1) c.<BR>> Unified messaging at the
HQ, in the "pilot" group, to the best of the<BR>> abilities and
availability of products around CM 4.x (e.g. PA, among<BR>> others, as an
example of what I am getting at) (PHASE 1)<BR>> d. Experience
from c> ==> full implementation of unified messaging at
the<BR>> first remote ("upgrade" of the standalone Unity into
an Exchange-tied one<BR>> - is this even possible?!?) (PHASE
2)<BR>> e. remote site used as template fro all other sites
(PHASE 2)<BR>> f. full upgrade at the HQ (PHASE 2), with the
exception of Call Center<BR>> g. Cisco IPCC replacement of the
existing Nortel Call Center, after the<BR>> entire VoIP and IPT
has proven reliable to sustain a Customer Service<BR>> (PHASE
3)<BR>><BR>> 3. The unified communications (including
messaging) will eventually<BR>> adddress various business needs, primarily
focused on mobility and<BR>> real-time communications and
sharing<BR>><BR>> Having said all of the above, here are the
issues I am struggling with:<BR>><BR>> - I have (and nobody
in my network geeks group) no real experience with<BR>> Cisco
VoIP/IPT;<BR>> - the suggested solution, from Cisco, revolves
around a CM 4.2 and,<BR>> gradually, as explained above, updates to the
point of full unified<BR>> messaging - still 4.2-based<BR>>
- I am getting conflicting messages from our Cisco group - they advise
us<BR>> to do the install with CM 4.2 (which would end up as a cluster of
multiple<BR>> servers, at the HQ), not CM 5.0, but:<BR>> - I
am reading and reading, and it appears to me that some features<BR>>
associated with CM 4.2 are dying (e.g. PA), while CM 5.0 seems to open
the<BR>> door for much more, but not everything backward compatible with
4.x<BR>> - tons of features are being advertised as related to
CM 5.0, only, but<BR>> are not ready yet, and are to be released this year
(majority in second<BR>> quarter)<BR>><BR>> Bottom line -
I am struggling with one major question (with no easy<BR>> answer - thus
appreciating any comments this list may have): should I move<BR>> ahead as
started, with the one site + pilot HQ, on CM 4.2 (PHASE 1), then<BR>> go
over all phases, then analyze what would need to be upgraded to a 5.0<BR>>
environment, if certain additional features would become available and<BR>>
needed, and not backward compatible<BR>> OR<BR>>
should I just put a stop to the CM 4.x analysis and planning, and
redo<BR>> everything (with the delay caused by various products
availability)<BR>> around CM 5.0?<BR>><BR>> As I said -
any $0.02-$64K comments will be really appreciated. I will<BR>> try to
consolidate this type of info, in something useful, if enough data<BR>>
warrants it.<BR>><BR>> Thanks,<BR>>
Stefan<BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> cisco-voip
mailing list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR>>
<A
href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</A><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>cisco-voip
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</A><BR><A
href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>