The first question raised here is why is this switch even being considered for production? We've not run CAT5/5e in 2+ years having run nothing but CAT6 even in the smallest of customers. With full gigabit switches very cheap today, I don't understand why Cisco continues develop 100Base-T products, especially switching products. The RV0xx 100Base-T ports are fine because we don't consider routers viable LAN switching devices. The only devices ever connected directly to a router other than an uplinked switch are VoIP devices (e.g. Vonage) or non-mission critical devices like webcams, but PCs are all connected via separate switches, but the need for 15 year old technology isn’t there any more when gigabit is not much more expensive, every PC supports it today (I’ve seen sub-$500 systems with gigabit NICs in them), and gigabit provides for a much longer life in what, based on Cisco’s other pricing, is likely to be an expensive switch compared to competitors.
IMHO, this is back to Cisco needing to reevaluate its product lines and significantly reduce the number of SKUs it has out there. The cost alone of maintaining, supporting, stocking, marketing, etc… several different switches should easily supplant the small cost of gigabit over FE.
2) Noise is the #1 complaint I get for LAN gear and it seems as though this switch has its fans spinning at 100% no matter the load. Can you not use temperature controlled fans? Small businesses often do not have a dedicated wiring closet and as such their networking equipment is often in an office. IMHO, this switch is too loud and will be returned all too often due to noise.
3) You should include a pre-defined SNTP server by default. Personally, I'd start with time-a.nist.gov on 129.6.15.28.
4) You could save $ by simply not having the serial interface. Small businesses can barely handle a GUI let alone a CLI. This goes back to Cisco's lack of understanding of the small business market. The serial cable will simply be discarded or otherwise lost and as such is just added cost with little to no benefit.
5) A documentation problem. Page 4 states "Cisco strongly recommends using Cat5 or better cable for Gigabit connectivity." The problem is gigabit is absolutely horrible on Cat5 not much better on 5e. The statement should, IMHO, state, "Cisco strongly recommends using CAT6 or better cable for Gigabit connectivity." In fact, you should also state that ends and patch cords need to match the left of the cable runs (I've replaced far too many ends where other vendors ran CAT6 in the walls and use CAT5 punch blocks and patch cords and the customer was having problems. The LAN is going to perform to the lowest common standard).
6) As stated in the RV0xx beta, Cisco needs to decide on a default username/pwd combination. The RV0xx uses admin/admin, Cisco Small Biz Pro uses admin/cisco. For this device it's cisco/cisco and you can't change the "cisco" username to admin to better fit with others. Pick one, no one cares which one, but just pick one and stick with it.
7) Cisco Small Business (not Small Business Pro) must decide if it's going to save settings by default when you click Apply or if you have to click Save. The problem is "Save" is VERY, I cannot stress this enough, VERY small and 99% of small businesses are NEVER going to see it let alone know they have to click it (you don't have to click Save on any of the Small Business routers like the WRV's or RV0xx's). The first time a small business owner makes a bunch of configuration changes and doesn't click save but the power goes out and ALL his settings are gone will be the last time they buy a Cisco Small Business product. Dell's save when you click Apply. RV0xx save when you click apply. SA500s save when you click apply. Many of us have complained about the ESW500s not saving when you don't click "Save Configuration" (again, Cisco can't seem to get its terminology consistent between products). Assuming Cisco's small business customers have the same level of experience and expertise as your Catalyst or ASA customers do is a mistake and one that Dell doesn't make. Cisco has been making calls to VARs and resellers of late to find out more about now small businesses think (I belive I've done 2 or 3 of these 1.5 hour conversations), but I'm convinced Cisco has a long way to go.
8) Another documentation mistake. The QSG says the device comes on 192.168.1.254 but you "must choose an IP address in the range of 192.168.1.2-192.168.1.253 that is not already in use." First, 192.168.1.254 is a perfectly legitimate IP and need not be changed if it's 1) not already in use and 2) not planned to be in use. Second, you absolutely do not need to pick something on 192.168.1.0/24, our LAN is on 192.168.100.0/24 and it works just fine on 192.168.100.247.
