1. Compaq StorageWorks vs. The Competition Kevin Farley Competitive Response Team IT3 February 22, 2001 February, 2001

2. Agenda  Introduction –Mission Statement –Delivery Methodology –Additional Resources  Vendor Overviews (Sun, HP, HDS, IBM, Dell, EMC) –Storage Strategy –Product Lines –Competitive Positioning –Strengths/Weaknesses –Attack Points –Why StorageWorks

3. Mission Statement To develop and deliver best-in-class tactical competitive analysis, tools and support to Compaq’s partners and field sales organizations, ESG product marketing and ISSG in a timely manner.

4. Primary Coverage:  EMC - Sal Capizzi, George Lester  IBM - George Lester  Sun - Kevin Farley  HDS - George Lester  Dell - Sal Capizzi  HP - Kevin Farley  Xiotech - Kevin Farley

5. Secondary Coverage  Network Appliance - Sal Capizzi, Kevin Farley  MTI - Sal Capizzi  STK - Sal Capizzi  Veritas, Tivoli - Competitive Team  SAN market - Competitive Team  Management software - Competitive Team  Storage Utility – Competitive Team

6. Contact Information  Sal Capizzi - 508-841-2602 –Sal.Capizzi@Compaq.com  George Lester - 508-841-2064 –George.Lester@Compaq.com  Kevin Farley - 508-841-2882 –Kevin.Farley@Compaq.com  FAX: 508-841-6183

7. Remember  “…Be the Ball”? – Be The Customer – Address His Concerns  Sell High  Sell the Solution – not the box  Document and Communicate

9. Compaq Storage Vs EMC At-A-Glance February, 2001

10. EMC Approach with Customers  Sells value of its storage solutions –Reality: justifying the high price  Pitches business value to CIO level –Reality: avoiding the hardware sell at the user level  Provides complete service and support as a standard offering –Reality: does not want customers to have the option of supporting complex Symmetrix storage systems

11. EMC Claims  EMC is the largest storage company  Compaq as a company is not focused on selling storage  Superior SANs - Gartner Group rates EMC highest in SAN magic quadrant  EMC understands Windows/NT better than Compaq  EMC Hardware is superior to StorageWorks  EMC Software is superior to SANworks

12. What EMC Says About Compaq  Compaq is not an enterprise storage vendor due to lack of mainframe support - Enterprise is not defined as mainframe and Compaq has relationship with ENT  Compaq is a PC Vendor - IDC shows Compaq as #1 storage vendor with 20% market share of multi-user storage  Compaq has limited experience in disaster tolerance and business critical environments; says SANWorks is immature - Although DRM, SWVR, and EVM have not shipped as long as SRDF and TimeFinder, they have been extremely successful.  Compaq doesn’t offer FC Drives - FC Drives do nothing to add performance; only CLARiiON offers FC drives, not Symmmetrix

13. EMC Storage Strategy  Strategy is focused on high-end and high priced mainframe monolithic architectural approach  Software is used as a differentiator and required to justify the high price  Historically based upon proprietary Symmetrix design, however EMC is pursuing company buyouts such as Data General, Conley Software, McDATA, Softworks  CLARiiON is positioned as the low cost alternative to Symmetrix when Symmetrix software is not required

14. EMC Storage Products - Symmetrix Symmetrix 8000 Family Replaces 3xxx & 5xxx Families  Symmetrix 8430 (-18, -36, -50) –18GB, 36GB, 50GB Disk Drives –8 to 96 Drives –Entry price - $425,000  Symmetrix 8730 (-18,-36,-50) –18GB, 36GB, 50GB Disk Drives –32 to 384 Drives –Entry price - $650,000

15. Positioning vs EMC Symmetrix  Symmetrix 8430  Symmetrix 8730  RA, MA8000  ESA, EMA 12000 Compaq SAN

16. EMC and CLARiiON  EMC product strategy focused on Symmetrix –Symmetrix is still the strategic product for EMC All product development is targeted towards exploiting Symmetrix.  EMC leads with high priced Symmetrix; when too high CLARiiON comes in as last resort  CLARiiON announced snapshot and remote copy in January 2001, but still lags in comparison to SANworks  No SAN based backup and restore  CLARiiON Fibre Channel disks offer no performance advantage over UltraSCSI disks

17. Positioning vs EMC CLARiiON  CLARiiON 4500, 4700  CLARiiON5200/5300*, 4700  CLARiiON5600/5700*  RA4100, MA6000, RA/MA 8000  RA/MA 8000 plus software ESA/EMA 12000 plus software * - End-of_Life

18. EMC Strengths/Weaknesses  Reputation as mainframe storage provider  Financial success  Software such as TimeFinder and SRDF  Aggressive sales force that sells high  Multivendor connectivity including mainframe  Aging proprietary monolithic mainframe architecture  Limited NT market share and mind share  Two different storage architectures with Symmetrix and CLARiiON  Entry price high as well as overall prices  Performance just average in open systems environments  Only sells storage + _

19. Compaq vs. EMC “A Quick Look”  Phone home supportYesYes  Mixed Unix/Windows support YesYes  Many servers to one storage deviceYesYes  Serverless data replicationSDRFDRM  Business continuance volumesTimeFinderEVM  SAN volume maskingVolumeLogixSSP  SAN path failoverPowerPathSecure Path  Dynamic load balancingPowerPathSecure Path  Virtual snapshotsTimeFinderEVM  Storage resource managementNoSRM  Storage allocation reportingNoSAR  SAN management appliance NoYes  SAN-wide virtualization strategyNoVersaStore  SAN-based backupNoEBS EMC StorageWorks + SANworks

20. StorageWorks Attack Points Vs EMC  EMC architecture is mainframe oriented - EMC has it’s roots in the mainframe storage market and is moving the mainframe architecture of Symmetrix to open systems environments.  EMC Symmetrix offering is proprietary - EMC will not even allow customers to maintain Symmetrix storage. All changes and upgrades require EMC support personnel.  EMC product strategy focused on Symmetrix - Even with the acquisition of CLARiiON, Symmetrix is still the strategic product for EMC Most product development is targeted towards exploiting Symmetrix.  EMC is storage only company - The AViiON server group is a separate division that EMC uses as another channel to sell storage.

21. StorageWorks Attack Points Vs EMC  Symmetrix not geared to UNIX or NT - Symmetrix large cache mainframe architecture is not a good fit in distributed open systems environments. EMC acquired DG CLARiiON to get UNIX and NT products.  Separate and incompatible product lines - Symmetrix and CLARiiON are totally different products and architectures. There is no upgradability between the two architectures.  CLARiiON has limited SAN software - Compaq SANWorks software such as DRM, SWVR, and EVM lead CLARiiON for disaster tolerance and business continuance solutions for open systems.  EMC will not drive SANs - SANs are in conflict with EMC monolithic large cache architecture. EMC SAN implementation is viewed as proprietary. In addition, industry analysts believe that only server vendors have the necessary influence with customers and application vendors to drive SAN implementations. 

22.  Compaq offers better price - Compaq offers customers a better, more cost effective business solution. For example, a typical Symmetrix configuration has an entry price of $420,000+ and offers only average performance in Open Systems environments.  Compaq offers better performance - The mainframe centric large cache design of Symmetrix does not perform as well as StorageWorks in distributed Open Systems environments.  Compaq has stronger SAN position - Compaq has been offering SAN solutions since 1998. EMC has just recently began to formulate an open SAN strategy. A Compaq SAN provides value via a modular, scalable storage architecture versus EMC monolithic mainframe focused design. StorageWorks Attack Points Vs EMC

23. Why StorageWorks Vs EMC?  SANs are an inflection point in the storage market  Modular architecture more conducive to take advantage of SANs  Hardware product feature/functions have moved to parity  And who better connects to your business than Compaq  Provides business value for the customer  Today's SAN market is an integration and test market and that’s what Compaq does best

24. Why StorageWorks vs EMC?  Very cost competitive  Overall better performance in distributed environments  Compaq can provide total solution  Large global services organization  More flexible support structure  Better NT integration and support  Open SAN strategy

25. How to attack EMC  Find a way to get into the account on a new project  Get to know the customer  Make proposals that replace EMC boxes non- disruptively  Chip away at the installed base as the EMC units reach their end-of-life or warranty - i.e. when the customer must make a decision John Webster, Illuminata, Inc.

27. Compaq Storage Vs Sun Microsystems At-A-Glance February, 2001

28. Sun Storage Strategy  Sun’s CEO Scott McNealy - “We will win on storage, storage is not an industry, it’s a feature of the server.”  Sun’s Enterprise Storage Strategy is clearly a very aggressive capitalization of Sun’s server strategy –Resulted in a fragmented set of storage products –Inferior products = Dissatisfied Customers  Fundamental component is Solaris and servers for host-based functionality  Storage is an afterthought

29. Sun Storage Products  StorEdge A1000/D1000 –Entry level UltraSCSI (host and disk) storage –A1000 supports single storage RAID controller –D1000 - JBOD with host-based SW RAID –Based on 3 generation old LSI/Symbios technology  StorEdge A3500 and A3500FC –UltraSCSI or FC host interface –Supports 56 UltraSCSI drives in single cabinet –Supports Solaris and NT –Based on old 486DX4 controller technology CANNOT BE UPGRADED!

30. Sun Storage Products  StorEdge A5100/5200 –Host-based software RAID with FC host and disk interface –A5100 supports 14x18.2 GB 7.2K rpm drives –A5200 supports 22x9.1GB 10k rpm drives –Support Solaris and NT –Based on Sun Proprietary Technology

31. Sun - What they don’t say  StorEdge A5100/5200 –2 nd Tier Corporate attention and resources – weak support, service –Last upgrade Jan, 1999 –Depends on host-based servers for management –Industry reputation for poor reliability –Not certified for V3 Sun Cluster Software –Overhead causes servers perf. penalty –Supports only Solaris and NT –Based on Sun Proprietary Technology

32. Sun Storage Products  StorEdge T3 “Purple” - Announced 6-14-2000 – Modular design, SBus/FC-AL host connectivity –9 disks per drawer, 8 drawers per rack (72 disk total per cabinet) –Single Controller per drawer –18GB, 36GB 73GB FC drives –5.2TB capacity per rack - Max 168TB –Only Solaris support; NT in Q1’01 –Based on MaxStrat Technology

33. Sun Storage Products  StorEdge T3 “Purple” – Flagship product (based on MaxStrat acquisition) – Modular design, Sbus/FC-AL host connectivity –9 disks per drawer, 8 drawers per rack (72 disk total per cabinet) –Single Controller per drawer –18GB, 36GB, 73GB FC drives –5.2TB capacity per rack - Max 168TB –Only Sun Cluster support

34. Sun - What they don’t say  StorEdge T3 “Purple” – Redundant controllers aren’t ready - don’t work –Limited clustering support (only V2.2 from Sun) –LUNS/RAID limited to single shelf –Every 9 disks needs an additional controller! –Every shelf needs individual LUN management –Field Service will learn “on your nickle” –Dependent on server availability to access data - U10K has technical flaws –Not certified by Sun for new V3 Sun Cluster Software –Installation/wiring nightmare

35. Compaq vs. Sun “A Quick Look”  Phone home supportNoYes  Mixed Unix/Windows support NoYes  Many servers to one storage deviceYesYes  Serverless data replicationNoDRM  Business continuance volumesInstant ImageEVM  SAN volume maskingLimitedSSP  SAN path failoverNoSecure Path  Dynamic load balancingLimitedSecure Path  Virtual snapshotsInstant ImageEVM  Storage resource managementNoSRM  Storage allocation reportingNoSAR  Host-independent SAN management NoYes  Open SAN initiatives/commitmentNoYes  SAN-based backupNoEBS SUN StorageWorks + SANworks

36. Positioning vs Sun  StorEdge A1000/D1000  StorEdge A3500/A3500FC, T3 “Purple”  StorEdge A5100/5200, T3 “Purple”  StorEdge T3 “Purple”  RA3000/RA4200 MA8000  MA6000, MA8000 ESA12000  MA6000, MA8000  RA4200, MA6000, MA8000, EMA12000

37. Sun Strengths/Weaknesses  UNIX server success  Storage capture rate on Sun servers at initial sale  Message as standards leader, Jiro and Java  Limited multivendor platform support  Multiple storage architectures, i.e., MAXSTRAT, LSI/Symbios as well as SUN proprietary  Limited knowledge for support of NT, no other UNIX  Lack of penetration into large IT shops  Current products going EOL soon + _

38. Why StorageWorks vs Sun  Complete SAN vision, roadmap and products with emphasis on providing customer business value  StorageWorks support for major UNIX system platforms  Significant investment in support of NT platforms as well as a strategic relationship with Microsoft  StorageWorks provides a single, modular architecture that scales linearly, thus providing customers investment protection  History of delivering products as promised  Industry Analysts place Compaq as the Industry Leader with a complete vision and product suite

39. Business Concerns with Sun  Investment Protection? - Sun effectively EOL’d their existing products when T3 “Purple” was announced. (Sun offers 3 different architectures.)  Business Risk? - “Purple” has technical and reliability issues. Does the customer want to “field de-bug” a new, unproven product while maintaining their critical business operations?  Performance? - Sun servers handle storage functions and consume CPU cycles (est. 20%+ perf. penalty) instead of offloading mundane tasks to intelligent controllers. Customers pay more and get less.

40. Business Concerns with Sun  Accessing Data? – Servers control the data. A server crash = no data access unless clustered  Software? - Sun Servers & Solaris are usually a prerequisite. Off-platform hardware is not supported.  Reliability? – Sun is paying eBay $10M per year not to be thrown out of the account. (Source: Enabling Technologies Group, Atlanta, GA) PaineWebber survey (Feb., 2000) reported “near 50%” dissatisfaction with Sun storage.

41. Attack Points Against Sun  Sun will stress Sun-on-Sun, direct attach with Solaris control, preventing Customers from operating in an Open, mixed platform environment. Compaq offers vendor-neutral, universal connectivity.  Through the VersaStor alliance, IBM and Compaq are driving open management standards. Sun is Solaris centric.  Compaq offers global support through one (1) organization. Sun depends on 250+ independent organizations.

43. Compaq Storage Vs Hewlett-Packard At-A-Glance October, 2000

44. HP Storage Strategy  Historical support primarily for HP servers but moving towards multivendor support with “open” and “choice” as key messages  Mixed Enterprise Storage products based on HP and OEM Lines  Messages stressing software as major differentiator  Capacity-on-Demand (iCOD) to gain account control  “Stress-Free Storage” messages imply Customer satisfaction

45. HP - SureStore E Product Family  NetServer Storage –Supports HP NetServers (NT centric)  SureStore E Disk Array 12H (was AutoRAID 12H) –Supports HP-UX and NT  SureStore E SC10 –UltraSCSI host and disk interface –HP-UX only  SureStore E FC10 (formerly FC 1010D) –FC host and disk interface –HP-UX with future NT support

46.  SureStore E FC60 –Based on LSI/Symbios - FC host interface –HP-UX and NT  SureStore E XP48 –Mid range version of XP 512 (48 disk capacity)  SureStore E XP256 (formerly MC256) –Based on HDS 7700E –9TB capacity - uses non-standard HDS drives –Replaces EMC Symmetrix  SureStore E XP 512 –Based on HDS 9900E –Supports 512 disks - 24TB capacity –New crossbar bus technology HP - SureStore E Product Family

47. Positioning vs HP  NetServer System/6 NetServer Rack Storage/12 NetServer Rack/12FC  SureStore E Disk Array 12H  SureStore E SC10  SureStore E FC60  SureStore E XP48  SureStore E XP256, XP512  RA3000, RA4x00, MA6000, MA8000  RA3000, RA4x00, MA6000, MA8000  MA6000, MA8000  MA8000 EMA 12000 Compaq SAN

48. HP Strengths/Weaknesses  Sells storage with HP servers  Suite of SureStore storage management products  Good storage technology, i.e AutoRAID  Focus on installed base - particularly vs EMC  Has tried their own, CLARiiON and EMC... and now HDS and LSI storage products  Limited multi-platform support - primarily HP-UX  High Turnover, Inexperienced Management Team + _

49. Why StorageWorks Vs HP  StorageWorks provides a single multi-vendor storage architecture including HP-UX support  HP has no clear Enterprise Storage Strategy unlike Compaq ENSA  HP XP 256, XP512 is a mainframe-centric, monolithic architecture like EMC  Analysts rate Compaq’s SAN Strategy as Superior to HP

50. Attack Points against HP  Too Many Different Architectures - Which is best? HP’s technology? LSI/Symbios? Hitachi? What about installed CLARiiON? How many rooms of spare parts does the Customer need?  Limited Multi-Platform Knowledge/Experience - HP sells primary to HP-UX accounts with some NT. What if the customer has Solaris or AIX or Tru64 or OpenVMS?  Risk of HP (again) Switching to Another Company - in early’99, HP re-signed with EMC for 3yrs, terminated in June, signed with HDS for 3yrs.  Significantly More Expensive - Across product groups, in similar configurations HP is generally 30% - 80% more expensive than Compaq.

52. Compaq Storage Vs Hitachi Data Systems (HDS) At-A-Glance February, 2001

53. HDS Storage Strategy  Combine hardware, software and services for total solutions  Build alliances and relationships to provide “one-stop-shopping”  Stress continuous uptime and fault-tolerant solutions  Provide an “Open” SAN Architecture allowing customers to select any storage product from any vendor.

54. HDS Storage Products  Freedom 9200 Series –Announced January, 2001 –7.2TB capacity –All Fibre Architecture  Freedom 7700E –11TB Max. Capacity –HP reselling as HP XP256  Freedom Lighting 9900 –Model 9960 - 24TB Max. Capacity –HP reselling as HP XP512

55. Compaq vs. HDS “A Quick Look”  Phone home supportYesYes  Mixed UNIX/Windows support YesYes  Many servers to one storage deviceYesYes  Serverless data replicationRemote CopyDRM  Business continuance volumesShadowImageEVM  SAN LUN maskingLUN ManagerSSP  SAN path failoverPath ManagerSecure Path  Dynamic load balancingPath ManagerSecure Path  Virtual snapshotsShadowImageEVM  SAN Storage resource managementNoSRM  Storage allocation reportingNoSAR  SAN management appliance NoYes  SAN-wide virtualization strategyNoVersaStore  SAN-based backupNoEBS HDS StorageWorks + SANworks

56. Positioning vs HDS  HDS 9200  HDS 7700E  HDS 9960  MA6000 & MA8000, EMA12000  MA8000 & EMA12000  EMA12000 Compaq SAN

57. HDS Strengths/Weaknesses  Recognition in large IT shops  IBM mainframe connectivity  Reputation for highly available, high performance array products  Mainframe niche is primary market  Limited resources due to company size  Dependent upon parent Hitachi to fund development  Lacks a large global services organization. Total employee population approximately 2,300 + _

58. StorageWorks Attack Points Vs HDS  HDS has limited resources - HDS has less than 2,300 total employees and is rumored to be under pressure from Hitachi Ltd. to either get healthy and profitable or get lost. They are seriously lacking in engineering, sales and service resources.  HDS leads technology versus solutions - In order to claim performance leadership HDS has introduced a switch architecture controller that is totally new and unproven. They claim high performance based upon I/O specifications, but have not provided any real world benchmark or performance data.  HDS employs proprietary technology - For example, they use proprietary Hitachi disk drives and PowerPC CPUs in their HDS 7700 and HDS 9900 subsystems

59.  Compaq has stronger SAN position - Compaq has been offering SAN solutions since 1998. HDS lacks SAN management capability. According to Evaluator Group they have not delivered a common storage management capability and they lack a real plan, roadmap or timeline for achieving their SAN management goals.  Compaq offers better performance - The mainframe centric large cache designs of the HDS 7700E and HDS 9900 may not perform as well as StorageWorks in distributed Open Systems environments.  Compaq offers better price - Compaq offers customers a better, more cost effective business solution. For example, an HDS 9900 configuration of 3TB has a list price of $1.5 million versus $700,000 for a 3TB EMA 12000. StorageWorks Attack Points Vs HDS

60. Why StorageWorks vs HDS  Compaq delivers the Enterprise Information Utility through ENSA, StorageWorks and value added software and services  SANs are an inflection point in the storage market and Compaq is better positioned to take advantage than HDS  Compaq SANs can provide the business value customers are looking for at significantly less cost

62. Compaq Storage Vs IBM At-A-Glance February, 2001

63. IBM Storage Strategy  IBM’s primary approach to storage has consistently been based on its proprietary architectures, i.e. S/390, AS/400, RS/6000 and Netfinity servers.  Seascape strategy attempts to unite different architectural components, including: –Storage arrays and tape solutions –ADSM and Tivoli management –SAN components  Goal to be an OEM storage technology provider as well as market share leader

64. Compaq/IBM Alliance  Strategic partnership between two industry leaders –Cooperate to improve interoperability for customers –Work together to help define and promote open standards for networked storage –Create a common open architecture to support storage virtualization, data sharing and policy based storage management  Compaq VersaStor technology and Tivoli System-managed Storage technology will interoperate in support of open storage network environments –Strengthen each company’s portfolios  Storage solutions and services –Endorse Tivoli enterprise management solutions

65. Components of the Alliance  IBM will… –OEM the StorageWorks Modular Array Technology –Endorse VersaStor Technology –Resell  SANworks Enterprise Volume Manager  SANworks Data Replication Manager  SANworks Secure Path  SWCC (StorageWorks Command Console)  Compete against Compaq  Compaq will… –OEM the Enterprise Storage Server (Shark product) –Resell Tivoli Enterprise Management Software  Compete against IBM

66. IBM Storage Products  Netfinity Storage for IBM Intel-based Netfinity Servers –EXP15, EXP200/300 SCSI arrays, EXP500 FC-AL arrays  7133 Serial Disk System –Midrange SSA solution scalable from 36GB to over 3.5TB –Supports NT, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris  Fibre Channel Array 2102 –Storage for HP, Sun, IBM UNIX and Intel servers –Scalable from 36GB to over 2 TB

67. IBM Storage Products  Modular Storage Server (MSS) –AKA Compaq MA8000 –Supports NT/2000, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris and NetWare and OpenVMS –Scales up to 4 TB of capacity by using 18, 36, and 72GB drives  Enterprise Storage Server (Shark) –Positioned as data center solution –Performance and price push - EMC killer –Supports UNIX, NT, AS/400, S/390, NetWare –Up to 11.2TB of storage and 16GB of cache

68. Positioning vs IBM  Netfinity Storage  7133 Serial Disk System  Modular Storage Server  Fibre Channel Array 2102  ESS (Shark)  RA4X00  MA6000  MA8000  EMA12000 Compaq SAN

69. IBM Strengths/Weaknesses  Well entrenched in large IT shops  IBM mainframe connectivity  Storage management framework with Seascape architecture and Tivoli software  Major focus in now on winning back market share from EMC - becomes distraction  Slow to adopt FC; Limited multivendor connectivity  ESS lacks support for native Fibre channel, Flashcopy and Peer-to-Peer Remote Copy  Mainframe is still a priority + _

70. Why StorageWorks vs IBM  Compaq delivers the Enterprise Information Utility through ENSA, StorageWorks and value added software and services  SANs are an inflection point in the storage market and Compaq is better positioned to take advantage than IBM  Compaq SANs can provide the business value customers are looking for at significantly less cost

71. StorageWorks Attack Points Vs IBM  IBM offerings are proprietary - IBM’s focus is their installed proprietary base - NOT heterogeneous platforms. Stress IBM’s inexperience in supporting open and heterogeneous environments.  IBM offerings are complex - IBM’s offerings are complex, confusing, and mostly incompatible. Many IBM solutions/utilities are restricted to specific platforms - Not universally available or supported.  IBM leads with technology versus solutions - For example, Serial Storage Architecture (SSA) has not been embraced by the marketplace. SSA is proprietary, slower and more costly than Fibre Channel. Also, IBM has no significant SSA enhancements planned.  IBM is distracted by EMC - IBM gave up its mainframe storage market to EMC. Now they are spending $400M+ to reclaim it. In addition, they don’t consider Compaq a storage competitor.

72.  Compaq has stronger SAN position - Compaq has been offering SAN solutions since 1998. IBM just recently began to formulate a SAN strategy. A Compaq SAN provides value via a modular, scalable storage architecture versus IBM’s monolithic mainframe focused design.  Compaq delivers on its promises - IBM is known for pre- announcing products/features and failing to deliver. IBM has failed to deliver key ESS capabilities such as Flashcopy and Peer-to-Peer Remote Copy.  Compaq offers better performance - The mainframe centric large cache design of ESS does not perform as well as StorageWorks in distributed Open Systems environments.  Compaq offers better price - Compaq offers customers a better, more cost effective business solution. For example, a minimum ESS (Shark) configuration of 420GB has an entry price of $310,000+ and offers average performance in Open Systems environments. StorageWorks Attack Points Vs IBM

74. Compaq Storage Vs Dell Computer Corp. At-A-Glance February, 2001

75. Dell Storage Strategy  Dell implements a direct sales model for storage - Sells on price  Dell is not an enterprise storage vendor –Supports Dell Intel platforms only (added ProLiant) –Does not support non-Intel based UNIX –Acquires technology through partners  Dell is new to the external storage market –Historically sold storage internal to Dell server –Did not begin selling external RAID storage until 1998 with the introduction of PowerVault

76. Dell Storage Products  PowerVault 701N, 705N – Low-end NAS  PowerVault 735N – Mid-range NAS  PowerVault 224F - JBOD Disk Enclosure  PowerVault 660F - FC Storage Array  Dell’s low end NAS products are OEM’d from Quantum. Network Appliance relationship dissolved.  Dell’s PowerVault 735N is a Dell design  CLARiiON OEM agreement effectively cancelled

77. Positioning vs. PowerVault  PowerVault 701N, 705N, 735N  PowerVault 224F, 660F  TaskSmart 2400  MA8000 EMA 12000 Switched SAN and software  RA4000 for ProLiant only storage

78. Dell Strengths/Weaknesses  Price  Direct Sales Model  New to enterprise storage market  Focus limited to NT (Some NetWare and UNIX)  Limited to Dell and ProLiant servers today  No technology expertise in storage  Layoffs, reduced R&D investment, refocus towards existing PC products + _

79. Why StorageWorks Vs Dell  Clear vision and product roadmap for SANs  Support for heterogeneous platforms today –Convergenet provides an added middle layer of complexity and management  Large global services organization  Experience in the enterprise storage market - Dell’s direct model not the best fit for enterprise sales

80. Attack Points Against Dell  Investment Protection? Dell dropped Network Appliance, replaced CLARiiON. Where’s the stability and compatibility? Upgrades typically require replacing existing products.  Enterprise Experience? Dell’s focus has been on NT with no evidence of supporting of UNIX from Sun, HP, IBM or Compaq.  Product Selection? Dell has limited storage offerings. Compaq has a complete suite to select from to best match customer requirements

81. Attack Points Against Dell  SAN Experience? Gartner ranks Dell as average with limited vision while Compaq is rated as the clear leader.  Product Consistency? Dell frequently changes suppliers. There is very little uniformity in components. How many types of spare parts will the customer need to stock?  Service & Support? Dell depends upon 3 rd parties to provide service for Dell products. What about multi- vendor environments?