We've used Cisco in the past and find this product to be less expensive. 

I'm also familiar with Cisco. Compared with other solutions in the market, this product is great. We use Juniper as well.

I have used other solutions such as Cisco and Extreme Networks.

We have Cisco, HPE, Palo, and SonicWall. I believe those are the major brands we use for our switches, firewalls, and routers.

Before using ProCurve it was a Cisco switch, but we decided to go with this one. This decision was made before I entered this organization.

It was, I believe, layer two switches with 3750 Cisco routing capabilities, layer three switches, and a combination of all of those. But, as I previously stated, I'm not sure what the exact situation was, or what was in place before I walked in.

We also work with HPE Comware 1950 switches, which operate on a different operating system than ProCurve.

They are primarily intended for these layer two switches. They also provide layer three functions for the majority of it, but their CLI functions and terminologies differ. 

Their login process is different. They are mostly GUI-based, and they don't like it when you use CLI. 

There is an SLA monitoring feature, which Comware, ProCurve, or any HPE suite does not provide because they are Cisco proprietary. As a result, we must rely on bandaid solutions such as putting a Cisco switch in front of it to route traffic back and forth.

The only HPE products we use are the HPE layer three ProCurve switch and layer three switches ProCurve, and layer two is the Comware switches.

We do have SonicWall firewalls, and they are good to work with. We work with the TZ version. We have TZ 400 and TZ 500.

I have been working with them since I joined; I wasn't aware of it before I joined, but as soon as I did, I learned about it and now manage it; those are remote site firewalls that come routerly installed.

I have been working with them for approximately five years.

It's remote, which means we have four more remote facilities. All of their local firewalls are SonicWall. They are a component of our MPLS. 

It is a somewhat complicated network. They are a component of our MPLS. Their internal traffic comes here to headquarters, but their external traffic goes through SonicWall, which is located on the other side of the world.

We have that SonicWall firewall to control their external traffic.

With TZ, the most valuable feature is their management. It is very easy in the sense that they have completely GUI versions, and they barely use CLI. It is very interactive and easy to use. 

Whatever you want to set up, whether it's a failover or an SD-WAN, it's extremely user-friendly, which is a feature we appreciate.

There isn't anything that needs to be improved. They are good at responding. 

They provide excellent technical support. They are very good at responding to any questions or concerns we have. We have no major issues with them.

I've used other products but not at this scale. 

We were developing a new system for casinos and had to have the network to build upon. We already use HPE and Dell, but were not happy with them. We are not a Cisco house, so we got left with HPE because this is a from-scratch system for casinos.

When looking for a vendor, I look for reliability, price, and features that do what we want. It can be the best and cheapest thing that lasts forever, but we can't use it if it doesn’t have the right features. It has to do what we want.

Prior to this solution, I was working with Cisco switches, which we still have a lot of. We have physical network layers and for some purposes, the Cisco switches are very good. My preference, however, is ProCurve.

I have experience with switches from Dell. They lack some features but they are much cheaper than HPE.

We previously used many other types of HPE switches. We have a large number of switches.

We are getting rid of the HPE. We want to shift away from it.

We might have used something smaller in the past, however, now we are moving to enterprise-grade.

We previously used Cisco. We still have some Cisco switches, but we're switching over to HP as most of our network is oriented around it. It's more simple for us to work with HP. The pricing is also much better. Cisco is more expensive.

I have not used other solutions previously.

We switched because it was the most flexible one on the market from a port-modular perspective. It was the only one at that time where you had redundant components in one chassis.

We had Cisco before. It was considerably less than Cisco.

I work with several clients with several vendors, so I have experience with other solutions.

Most of the time our clients are using several vendors and we are trying to standardize to just one of them. HPE was used the most at that time.

We had Alcatel, and then we brought in HP about 10 years ago. We just wanted, as I recall, a program refresh. We were just looking at what was the best fit for our organization, what was scalable, and what was cost effective. I believe that at the time Cisco was cost prohibitive. We went for the more affordable and balanced, scalable solutions, which we found with HP.

We did not previously use a different solution.

We have used Mikrotik and Cisco products before. For the Mikrotik products, we only use models that are routers and with the Cisco products, there seems to be a new backdoor or a failure in firmware discovered and has to be patched. I have found this solution to be the best.

Before using HPE ProCurve I was using Switchcom. I also normally use Aruba and OfficeConnect.

No