| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1175.1 | | BSYBEE::EGOLF | John C. Egolf LKG2-2/T02 x226-7874 | Fri Jun 21 1991 09:06 | 104 |
| re .0
A demonstration on DECmcc/VMS and DECmcc/MSU is request in the comming
month. After read through the DECmcc/Ultrix & DECmcc/MSU topic in this
conference, I figure out DECmcc/Ultrix will "soon" be available, which
also leads to a lot of uncertainty.
0. I especially concern :
a. The marketing strategy of DECmcc/Ultrix & DECmcc/MSU,
b. A features comparison of DECmcc/Ultrix & DECmcc/MSU (how similar
or how different).
c. The short-term & long-term plan for DECmcc/Ultrix & DECmcc/MSU.
+++ Dick Andersen (FROSTY::ANDERSEN), Network Management Marketing
manager, is responsible for the strategy and positioning of
DECmcc and MSU. I, too, am concerned that the message that
comes out is clear and easily understandable.
1. >> DECmcc/Ultrix updated baselevel available before end of June.
Should I sell MSU at all, since it's probably another point-product
which will be obsolete eventually?
Or will a "DECmcc/Ultrix SMS" package be available?
+++ If you are going head-to-head with another good SNMP management
system like HP's Openview or Sun's Sunnet Manager or if the
customer wants a full SNMP solution *TODAY*, DEFINATELY sell
MSU. There will be upgrade programs to get people from MSU to
DECmcc. If the customer is just getting started and has more
than just SNMP, then I'd suggest getting them hooked on DECmcc
so that the learing of two different systems doesn't become an
issue.
Bottom line - lets not loose the sale to our competition
>> It require Ultrix V4.2.
What are others system configuration requirement? For example,
memory, disk etc. What is the recommented system used for
demonstration.
+++ Since we're just getting into FT, we don't have the definative
answer for you yet. What we are telling people is that you'll
need a DS3100 w/24M memory and about 600m of disk (like an
RZ56), and SQL/ Ingres. If you are familiar with DECmcc on
VMS you'll probably be glad to hear that DECdns is an option -
it is not required for V1.2 on Ultrix or VMS.
Although we believe that DECmcc/Ultrix will run acceptablly on
a DS3100, we'll probably recommend a DS5000 based on
price/performance and upgradeability.
2. >> This release will be the DECmcc V1.1 functionality.
Does it mean the first version of DECmcc/Ultrix will have all the
PM, FM & AM of DECmcc/VMS BMS V1.1? If NOT, what will not be
include and when will be available? Are the optional modules the
same for both?
+++ Yes, the upcoming release will have all the AMs, FMs, and PM's
of the VMS V1.1 product. This 'version' won't be sold as-is.
It is being released to FT to shake out problems and prove to
people we're making progress in the port and to get DECmcc into
Ultrix/Unix shops early as possible.
Later in the year we will be releasing the V1.2 FT will added
functionality (described in docs pointed in in other notes).
I heard/read from somewhere that DECmcc/VMS BMS v1.2 and
DECmcc/Ultrix V1.0 will be available by Q1 FY92 at the same time.
Is it TRUE?
+++ No. Q1 FY92 was never our target. We do plan on having
DECmcc/VMS BMS V1.2 and the same functionality on Ultrix (we're
calling that V1.2 because of functional reasons even though it
is the first release on Ultrix) shipping in Q3 FY92.
3. >> The user interfaces will be the same with the exception of a few
>> platform-specific items, like the format of times/dates.
With this statement I think I can only tell customers that
DECmcc/VMS & DECmcc/Ultrix has "close-to" user interface.
Can you give more examples of the platform-specific items?
+++ For the most part, they will be almost identical, except where
it makes sense. Example is that on VMS when an alarm fires,
you can execute a DCL command file. On Ultrix, you can execute
a shell script.
4. What are the latest migration plan for :
DECmcc/VMS --> DECmcc/Ultrix, and
DECmcc/MSU --> DECmcc/Ultrix
+++ Just that, plans. We will be creating migration tools to help
people do what you have decsribed in the picture above.
+++ JCE
|
| 1175.2 | Marketing strategy | ENUF::GASSMAN | | Fri Jun 21 1991 23:24 | 15 |
| Our current marketing plan around MSU and MCC is as follows. We plan
to market MSU very hard, until the Director, V1.2 ships. At that
point, we will push the director on ULTRIX hard, and drastically reduce
marketing MSU. As V2.0 of the Director ships, we will retire MSU.
Customers will be given an opportunity to convert from MSU to MCC
during the period between the release of MCC V1.2 and V2.0. Since MSU
is only about 7000 bucks, we cannot promise the upgrade will occur
at no cost, but customer's investments will be taken into account, and
all efforts to present an attractive offer to the customer to convert
will be made.
bill
|
| 1175.3 | common user interface | CTHQ3::WICK | Tom Wick, Corp. Telecom, Data Networks Group | Fri Jun 28 1991 17:06 | 12 |
| Bill,
MSU users could 'more painlessly' convert from MSU to MCC if at
least the user interface was the same. This would enable the users to
not have to 'learn' a new interface. The network managers of the IP
EASYnet backbone and portal groups are really in a quandry about
training their staff in MSU and then re-training them in MCC's user
interface.
I mentioned this to Jim Bound as well.
TOm
|
| 1175.4 | user interface | HGSW03::SUSANCHAN | | Mon Jul 01 1991 04:21 | 6 |
| Tom,
Do you mean that DECmcc/Ultrix's user interface is more close to MSU than
DECmcc/VMS?
Susan
|
| 1175.5 | DECmcc UI is the same on Ultrix as VMS | BSYBEE::EGOLF | John C. Egolf LKG2-2/T02 x226-7874 | Mon Jul 01 1991 17:29 | 5 |
| Just so we don't confuse each other, the user interface is the
same on DECmcc whether it is VMS or Ultrix.
Improvements are being made in the V1.2 for easy of use and
adding more "power" to the ui. What I've seen so far, I like.
|
| 1175.6 | The Directors are the same. | NSSG::R_SPENCE | Nets don't fail me now... | Tue Jul 02 1991 11:58 | 9 |
| To clarify... The interface is the same on the DECmcc Director whether
it is VMS or Ultrix. The DECmcc MSU is different as are the point
products on the VMS DECmcc EMS and SMS products.
Don't forget, DECmcc is a series of products, not a single product.
We frequently take the liberty of assuming that "mcc" means the DECmcc
Director, but not everyone makes that same connection.
s/rob
|
| 1175.7 | MSU and PC-MGR separate products | ENUF::GASSMAN | | Mon Jul 08 1991 12:08 | 11 |
| We might as well get used to MSU - because the same thing is happening
all over again. A PC based product is being OEM'd for use by the LENAC
folks (the puritan product - cheap bridges/terminalserver/repeater).
We'll have a low end PC SNMP manager, MSU for mid-range, and MCC for
the high-end, sophisticated service oriented customers.
MSU V1.1, due out this October, is changing a lot of their user
interface, as is MCC. Hopefully, there is some engineering exchange
going on, because between the two, there probably is a market leader.
bill
|
| 1175.8 | More info on PC mgr | WELLIN::MCCALLUM | | Tue Jul 09 1991 06:14 | 6 |
|
Is there any more info on the PC MGR around, the first I heard of it
was in Data Communications !
It sure would have been nice to know before my customers.
|
| 1175.9 | The need to out-wiz | ENUF::GASSMAN | | Tue Jul 09 1991 21:44 | 15 |
| There is no more official information - however I suspect that very
soon we will be starting announcement plans, which means that more will
have to be known. Since it involves another vendor, gag rules may
apply until announcement - but maybe not. There are several groups that
need a PC based manager for the 'cheap hardware' crowd, and neither
MCC or MSU is going in that direction (yet). In the commodity level
of selling network hardware giblets - network management can be a key
selling feature - because often the demo of the network device is given
by using a network management system with nice vertical applications.
Synoptics started this - and beat up Cabletron so bad that they
Cabletron invested a lot of money to try to one-up Synoptics. Now that
Digital wants to get into the 'smart-hub' market - a 'wizzier than yours'
type of demo using a network management system is needed.
bill
|
| 1175.10 | | EISNCG::OLEARY | | Mon Jul 15 1991 17:19 | 7 |
|
Maybe our competitors in the network management industry are performing
a little collusion of sorts to keep DEC from obtaining a truly
integrated network management environment. Everytime we get even
remotely close to our goal something comes along to *tilt* us...:-)
Mike
|