On-Premise vs. Hosted PBX: Understanding the Difference

Telecommunications has changed dramatically over the past 50 years but businesses still need to ask the same questions. Fifty years ago businesses were asking ‘is there a phone system we can buy to handle all our incoming and outgoing calls?’. The answer was typically to install a phone system or a private branch exchange (‘PBX’) on the wall in the company’s offices. Today businesses are asking 'is there a cheaper and more powerful phone solution out there that we should be considering?' The answer is that there is and cloud based phone systems or Hosted PBXs can provide exactly this to businesses.

A Hosted PBX system can deliver significant cost savings and productivity gains for businesses but is not necessarily for everyone. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach, but the final choice ultimately depends on what your business is seeking to achieve.

Whether you are an enterprise business or a small business implementing a new phone system or deciding on replacing an old one, this guide will help you decide which phone system is more suitable for your business.

 

This guide will discuss the differences with On-Premise and Hosted PBX in the following areas:

• Capex vs. Opex
• Hardware and Software
• Phones and Line Rentals
• Moving Office
• Home and Mobile Workers

Download this informative guide now!

Difference between RISC and CISC

 "RISC stands for reduced instruction set computer and CISC - for complex instruction set computer. The major difference is that RISC chips use simpler instructions sets to achieve higher clock frequencies and process more instructions per clock cycle than CISC processors. Typically CISC chips have a large amount of different and complex instructions. The philosophy behind it is that hardware is always faster than software, therefore one should make a powerful instructionset, which provides programmers with assembly instructions to do a lot with short programs. In common CISC chips are relatively slow (compared to RISC chips) per instruction, but use little (less than RISC) instructions. Intel and AMD, for example, develop CISC processors (x86) while Apple and SUN use RISC architecture. Major problem of RISC - they don't afford the widespread compatibility that x86 chips do.


Some say that RISC is cheaper and faster and therefor the architecture of the future. Others note that by making the hardware simpler, RISC puts a greater burden on the software. Software needs to become more complex. Software developers need to write more lines for the same tasks. Therefore they argue that RISC is not the architecture of the future, since conventional CISC chips are becoming faster and cheaper anyway.

RISC and CISC architectures are becoming more and more alike. Many of today's RISC chips support just as many instructions as yesterday's CISC chips. The PowerPC 601, for example, supports more instructions than the Pentium. Yet the 601 is considered a RISC chip, while the Pentium is definitely CISC."

As good discussion is from http://www.hitequest.com/Kiss/risc_cisc.htm

Difference between a switch and a bridge

Originally LAN segmenting was implemented using bridges. Learning bridges will look at source address of frames and determine which nodes are located on which side of the bridge, or more precisely they determine which nodes are connected to which ports. Bridges can perform comprehensive frame translation.


Switches are a more recent discovery that implement functionality similar to bridging (connecting two or more LANs). The main difference is that switches can setup connections between multiple ports in parallel (which generally bridges cant), since they use a single CPU. One more important distinction is that the L2 switch will be able to implement all the forwarding in hardware (orders of magnitude faster) as compared to the bridge which does it in software.