I can maybe compare the FortiGate Firewall versus Cisco. Cisco, you need to really understand. You'd have command lines to enter. You can create a rule there and it's very, very easy to use if you know the command line.

I'm trying to buy a firewall and I'm looking to buy a FortiGate 200 series. I had to choose between Cisco and FortiGate, however, on the routing and switching, I like Cisco. On the firewall, Cisco is great, I understand, however, maybe it's myself understanding how to do the rules on the Cisco Firepower device better than most.

I have experience with HPE Routers and Aruba, but that was over five years ago. As far as WAN connectivity, I have used Fortinet. Fortinet does not have browsers, but I used the firewall. For SD-WAN functions, I have used Meraki.

I have experience with Cisco UCS C-Series, HPE ProLiant DL, and Linux, specifically Cisco and HPE.

I haven't worked with routers from vendors other than Cisco. Even at home, I have a small Cisco router. Nowadays, some people use TP-Link and D-Link, but I feel that Cisco is the best for me. For small companies or small houses, Cisco routers are very good.

We deliver many various solutions and many services. We're bundling with our connectivity products, such as routers, switches, wireless, SD-WAN, and Zephyr.

We are exploring Cisco SD-WAN, Viptela, and Meraki, and then we're in the progress of exploring HPE and Aruba.

I'm very familiar with various Cisco solutions.

The main competitor is Huawei, and they have a bit of an advantage as they are less expensive than Cisco. 

We use many different Cisco devices. 

Previously, I used Linksys. However, it was a small household device. 

I have experience with IT service management at the director level. I have never used the product myself, I have been overseeing staff.

I have done a little bit of work in Oracle, Oracle database, and SQL Server, as well as Microsoft, but not IBM.

We have not used System Center SSIS, it was mostly network-centric, and my primary role was in networks rather than service. What I am monitoring is what we are doing at the network level.

SolarWinds was the most frequently used. It has a router family that can be deployed, so we use quite a few of those. Aside from that, we were using an ERP system, and Oracle was the backend there. 

We are primarily using Oracle ERP and then some apps to facilitate our center, which primarily provides advisory services. In order to gain industry insights, we rely more on organizations such as Gartner and others.

We were interested in getting the Point solution at one point; I believe that is what the product was called. I don't recall, but not because we don't run campaigns per se, so we don't really need a CRM system in place. 

We don't because we have a large customer base where we interact with CRM in our current role. Because it is mostly personalized, we use the phone or email.

Integration is something that has always existed, but we only considered it at the ERP level.

I was working on a project where we were doing both pre-implementation and implementation supervision. It was financed by the World Bank. It was in Africa, in a western African country called Ghana, if you're familiar with the name.

We have used McAfee and Semantic as well as other security software. We were also curious about network access control.

We primarily use these drives for storage. Maybe Box is the one we use the most, but we also use box.com and Google Drive to some extent.

We have implemented our own FTP, and we primarily use it with customers.

We don't use Google Hangouts, Google Classroom, or Google Cloud.

They are all based on Linux. There are not many of them. Python is used for front-end programming, and Oracle is used for back-end processing. Oracle has its own, complete with Java.

Oracle Linux, is limited to financials and HR for the ERP portions.

We have been using Red Hat.

For networks, Cisco was everywhere, we used Cisco access control and everything else, including routers and firewalls.

I'm also familiar with Huawei, and I find them to be not quite as well-made as Cisco. However, they both have similar functionality and serve the same purpose. 

We previously used Juniper and Extreme routers. Since I am mostly exposed to Cisco products, I do find Juniper routers to be a bit difficult to manage. 

We used Cisco Router 2911 before this.

We have worked with other routers, but Cisco is the best.

I didn't previously use a different solution.

I use many of the Enterprise Routers. I use now Cisco Routers 4420, 4431, 4450. I use IOS, IOS XE.

Cisco is very a popular vendor in this country, so I have been using Cisco products all along, in terms of routing. I have not been exposed to other technologies.

I only really use Cisco devices. I used a few different options before I used Cisco. 

Cisco is somehow expensive in comparison to other vendors. Hence, we have switched to other brands only to satisfy the financial needs of our customers. Our only suggestion to customers is Cisco.

We didn't really use another solution, at least not on a large scale. We did use some small routers like Linksys for a handful of people. For the purpose of our internet connectivity from the service provider to my company, I wanted to use Cisco.

We have been customers with SAP since 2004.

We use SAP and ECC6, and we will be migrating to SAP4/Hanne in April.

I am familiar with SAP Business One, but we are not using it.

We also have East Oil, an SAP vertical solution for petroleum businesses.

We do not have any solutions on the cloud. All of our solutions are deployed on the premises.

We also work with another solution for our fueling system called Dover WAN Fusion.

We use Endpoint Security for Windows and Kaspersky.

For our email, we use lotus notes and Image Source.

For our SAP server, along with Oracle Database, we use IX Unix and Linux.

We use PEPLink in the store and Cisco in the headquarters. We've got a hybrid solution, we use two different vendors.

We previously used, and still use Juniper. We use both Juniper and Cisco within our organization; we haven't replaced one with the other.

Depending on the client's needs we use other solutions such as HPE.

Previously we were using another solution, but we change to Cisco Enterprise Routers because where I work, most people want to have full control of their devices.

We use some products from Cisco's competitors.

We use FortiGate as well. It provides more efficient firewall functionality and is more inexpensive than Cisco.

We also work with Sophos, Fortinet, Nutanix, Peplink, and F5 products. We're also Juniper partners.

While we tend to always recommend Cisco, if a client doesn't have the budget for the solution, they may choose something else.

We have always used Cisco equipment. Cisco is known worldwide by everyone and most people know what they stand for.

We have previously used other solutions than Cisco but we are getting rid of them.

Yes, it depends of the customer's budget and management directions.

Prior to using the solution, I made use of Juniper routers.

We were using the old Telco PABX and had to switch over to VoIP because it was irrelevant and incompatible.

Actually, it is the Cisco products we use now that we will be replaced with another solution. We did not move from something else to Cisco. We have plans to get rid of the equipment. We want to switch to another vendor which has more robust products for a lower cost. We pay too much for what we get in performance. The problem is not really in terms of capabilities but in terms of the capacity of the equipment. It makes no sense for us to have such expensive equipment where we can have router equipment with less complexity and then have proper firewalls behind it.

The features Cisco intends to include in their product are very limited due to the way the features affect the capacity of the equipment. For example, imagine that the equipment is capable of handling a hundred megabits of internet access without any additional features configured. After the additional features are enabled and configured to perform the job as advertised, the bandwidth and performance are reduced drastically. It makes no sense to have such expensive equipment if it does not do what is intended or if it does not do it as well as another configuration would using dedicated products. Cisco advertises all the things you can do, but then you get the overall capacity squeezed and it is not as great as advertised.

It is not exactly that the product does not do what it is advertised to do, but you lose the performance that you expected when going with this model. If we knew about this performance drawback before, then we would not have bought this expensive line of the product. We would have gone with something cheaper. It could even have been a different Cisco product, but we would configure the network in a different way. We would not do the firewall in JCL (Job Control Language) that's on the routers, but we would do it on a proper firewall. If we did not spend that much money on the gateway equipment, then we could get different equipment with a proper firewall using what we saved.