Interesting.  A few years ago, I was in the reverse position.  I had 
TSM, but could not continue due to (my mainframe) platform.  I was the 
tech person and saw TSM vastly superior to NBU.  Decision makers and 
finances (deals were bountiful) meant a switch to NBU.

Now I know NBU well and can make it work fairly reasonably.  But even 
now it is not the product that TSM was a few years ago.  There are vast 
differences in how the two products work, so they are difficult to 
compare.  My biggest difference makers?   TSM can easily be made to run 
by itself for long periods of time, with confidence of your 
backup/restore capability/status and its SQL interface to *everything* 
from settings to logs to backed up file information.  3rd party products 
such as from Aptare may bring NBU up to the TSM level. 

Finally, I temper all this with the facts that I started NetBackup 4 
years ago and stopped looking at TSM 3 years ago.  Both TSM and NBU have 
great user support mailing lists. 3 years ago, TSM had significantly 
greater technical support people participating in the mailing list than 
NBU.  Recently, we've had a little Symantec participation here ... I 
find that significant and very much appreciate it!

Hope this helps someone!   cheers, wayne

smpt wrote, in part,  on 11/22/2006 5:16 AM:
> If you are a tech person and not the decision maker and you had a small demo
> of TSM, this is the decision you will make.
> TSM is working but the gui is terrible 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Joe Royer
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 11:08 PM
> To: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup, Networker, or CommVault Galaxy?
>
> I'm curious why you ruled out TSM