View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
plambrecht
Joined: 19 May 2004 Posts: 151 Location: Belgium
|
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:23 am Post subject: Dashboard |
|
|
Hi,
I'm in a final comparison of the product to use in our Company.
Your product is really complete. It has it all..
expect a nice dashboard that show in one eyeblink the status of the netwerk.
This screenshot is what I mean : http://www.n-able.com/images/products/IT_screens/10.gif
Is there a way to generate a view like that ?
Pieter. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KS-Soft
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 12795 Location: USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guenter Matthaeus
Joined: 09 Sep 2003 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:33 am Post subject: Correct |
|
|
We also use the compact htm form to have an overview. But for someone who is not an programmer it is very difficult to give the form a good looking view. For example we have 160 Servers at 2 locations in 6 racks.
For me (no programmer) it would be a good solution to have a gui where i can drag and drop the blockitem to confirm to the location.
A few years ago there was one VISIO version where you can trace your network, arrange the items draw clouds and anything else.
But its only a request from a poor non programmer |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KS-Soft
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 12795 Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is always some compromises between flexibility and simplicity. E.g. standard HTML reports allow you to configure report within 1-2 minutes. While "Custom HTML report" allows you to produce any report you want, you need to know HTML.
I see your point - some simple and powerful drag&drop GUI... But it means we have to create fully functional HTML editor (you want to be able check reports from any point without any special software. Right? So, it should be HTML).
Probably we can add some new (preconfigured) report types instead?
Regards
Alex |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would highly recommend KS over N-Able. We recently migrated OFF of N-Able and onto KS after spending $40,000 on N-Able. The testing mechanisms in KS are much more complete and granular than in N-Able. Plus the product is reliable and robust, which is more than I can say about N-Able. In our experience, N-Able was blaoted and generated so many flase positives (not to mention the failure to detect real issues) that it was a completely unusable product.
If you have any sort of programming talent or imagination, you can turn KS into oneof the most powerful monitoring tools out there...without spending the type of money N-Able is asking for. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KS-Soft
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 12795 Location: USA
|
Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you.
Looks like we need new forum "Opinions/References"...
Regards
Alex |
|
Back to top |
|
|
KS-Soft
Joined: 03 Apr 2002 Posts: 12795 Location: USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
MikeM
Joined: 05 Sep 2004 Posts: 7
|
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
To basically echo what "Guest" said; I am also using AHM to replace N-Able (Un-Able) because of (1) the cost/value/licensing model and (b) extensibility of the product.
I have also bought/implemented products like Nagios, Big Brother, WuG, Micromuse Netcool, HP-OV, CA Unicenter, MS MOM and NetIQ AppMgr/SecMgr/SRC, etc... AHM is in the same class or better than these products.
Having said that; please don't go "big time" Alex; the most compelling reason of all to use AHM is the personal attention and responsiveness that you provide to your users. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|