Ascend Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (ASCEND) Ascend going mad ? (was: Stable code for Max 18


While I too am a big fan of Cisco's tech support (and its supporting online
systems) - they have
a shortcoming in their product line shared with Ascend:  a good 8 port
$5000 (or so) box for
supporting small offices.  The Max 200 is simply a DOG.  We have replaced
so many of
these things around the globe and they continue to freeze up randomly.  If
only they'd at
least politely reboot themselves when felling overwhelmed.

Cisco meanwhile pushes the notion of integrating modem (available June-July
they say) and ISDN cards
into their 3640 routers.  To justify the priciness of this solution they
note that they can support voice over
IP.  Of course if you haven't decided that's a direction you want to go -
that ain't much help.

The other thing to look out for is Cisco's Mica modems.  We have two
heavily loaded 5300 routers - one
with 48 modems and one 96.  The modems lock up and can't right themselves.
We have some work-around
code that reloads the mica sw when they see three fails in a row.

Ahh..I too feel better.



>

I sent e-mail to both ascend and cisco about a
problem i was having connecting a cisco box to
an ascend box. I sent the e-mails within 5 minutes
of each other.

I had swapped about a dozen e-mails in 4 days with a
guy at cisco trying to solve the problem when i got
a message from acsend telling me to go look at their
web page.

Ascend support pales in comparison to cisco's it just
isn't even close.

Next system i set up will be 100% cicso. Support is *the*
most important thing a company can do, and Ascend doesn't
do it very well at all.

Graham[well vented]

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:   <http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>



Received: from Mailer.symantec.com ([198.6.49.5]) by smtp-ima.symantec.com
with
SMTP
  (IMA Internet Exchange 3.01 Enterprise) id 00070289; Tue, 21 Apr 98
  14:54:29
-0700
Received: from max.bungi.com (max.bungi.com [207.126.97.7]) by
Mailer.symantec.com (8.8.4/8.7.6) with ESMTP id OAA12362 for
<MMedwid@symantec.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
 by max.bungi.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA27250
 for ascend-users-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: max.bungi.com: majordom set sender to
owner-ascend-users using -f
Received: from daver.bungi.com (daver.bungi.com [207.126.97.2])
 by max.bungi.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27244
 for <ascend-users@max.bungi.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from knight.meteostar.com(really [205.169.222.1]) by
daver.bungi.com
 via sendmail with esmtp
 id <m0yRin3-0000WpC@daver.bungi.com>
 for <ascend-users@bungi.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 12:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
 (Smail-3.2.0.94 1997-Apr-22 #8 built 1997-Jun-19)
Received: (from graham@localhost) by knight.meteostar.com (8.7.6/8.7.1) id
NAA09586; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:27:09 -0600 (MDT)
From: Graham Knight <graham@knight.meteostar.com>
Message-Id: <199804211927.NAA09586@knight.meteostar.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) Ascend going mad ? (was: Stable code for Max 1800)
To: jim@carroll.com
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:27:08 MDT
Cc: beck@ibh.de, ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD.3.91.980421121955.14978D-100000@apollo.carroll.com>;
 from
"Jim Carroll" at Apr 21, 98 12:29 (noon)
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4]
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com
Precedence: bulk







++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>