Posted on 06/22/2002 12:48:53 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
Microsoft .Net software's hidden cost
Sat Jun 22,11:11 AM ET
Joe Wilcox
Companies planning on moving their old programs to Microsoft's new .Net software plan had better prepare for sticker shock: Making the conversion could cost roughly half of the original development cost, Gartner says.
More Newsletters (CNet/ZDNet Privacy Policy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
That may come as a blow to penny-pinching information systems departments in big companies, even those very familiar with Windows programming.
Typically, moving to a new software release isn't so costly. But, warns Gartner's Mark Driver, .Net isn't just a new release of Windows.
"People mistakenly assume the cost of upgrading will somehow be the same as going from one version of a well-established product to another. That's definitely not the case (with .Net)," said Driver, who devised the cost model.
Ari Bixhorn, Microsoft's product manager for Visual Basic.Net, disputed Gartner's conclusions. He said most conversions to .Net are about 95 percent error-free, meaning they can be completed at a cost much lower than what Gartner estimates.
Gartner, however, considered factors other than code conversions in its analysis, such as training and lost productivity. Bixhorn said he didn't see either training or productivity problems as much of a concern.
Microsoft's .Net plan includes new releases of the company's Windows operating system and other server software, along with development tools and infrastructure to make programs more Internet-aware. One new technology supported by .Net is Web services, which promise to make linking internal computer systems, and systems residing in multiple companies, far easier than current methods.
What's unclear is whether the additional cost of moving to .Net will slow Web services releases. Several technology buyers told News.com this week that they are waiting for additional standards and better compatibility before they commit to large-scale projects.
The most prominent piece of .Net released so far is Visual Studio.Net, a new version of Microsoft's development tool package, which debuted in February.
Visual Studio.Net includes new versions of familiar tools such as Visual Basic and Visual C++. But the tool bundle is radically different than predecessors. It includes a new development language called Visual C# (pronounced "see sharp"), and introduces the .Net Framework and Common Language Runtime, which are technologies for managing and running programs.
The new development tool package also ushers in ASP.Net, a specialized type of software called a class library, replacing an older technology called Active Server Pages (ASP) for creating Web applications that support new Web services technology.
Still, long term, Driver predicted that making the switch to .Net for building new programs would help lift productivity and create more efficiency within companies.
"Over the course of the lifetime of an application, .Net might give you 20 percent cost advantage or more over using the older technologies," he said. "You will be able to recover that migration cost over the course of three to five years."
Companies making the switch could do so all at once, but most will likely make the change over a longer period of time. Either way, the cost of migration stays the same.
"It's an issue of paying the 60 percent up front or over the course of three years," Driver said.
The largest cost is code conversion. Because it is difficult to calculate, the 60 percent estimate in some cases could be too low.
The cutting edge can hurt
Gartner based its migration cost estimates on Visual Basic.Net and not on its cutting-edge, Java-like Visual C# programming language. One reason: Cost. A forthcoming study will say the migration cost associated with C# would be even higher than the standard Visual Studio .Net tools, Driver said.
"Some clients have asked about going directly to C#," Driver said. "For the vast majority, going from Visual Basic to Visual Basic.Net may be painful, but it's going to be the least painful of the strategies."
C# is seen as a crucial programming language for advancing .Net. Use of the language doubled in six months, according to a March study by Evans Data.
Without a doubt, companies switching to the new tools and migrating software applications over the long haul will find the switch over the easiest, but even they face difficulties in planning. Driver used the example of a developer running the older version of Visual Studio and Visual Studio .Net over a protracted period.
"That becomes untenable at some point," he said. "You've got to make the switch. So even if you go with a hybrid model, you've got to remember that you're spreading your resources thin over two different platforms."
There are other concerns about making the switch to .Net. At the top of the list is security, Driver said. Following a January memo from Chairman Bill Gates ( news - web sites), Microsoft cranked up emphasis on security. But problems have still surfaced in recent months.
"Some people are hesitant to put Internet Information Server (behind a public Web site) because of security issues. Well, .Net doesn't really address those problems," Driver said. "IIS is still just as vulnerable with .Net running behind it as the older ASP (Active Server Pages) code running behind it."
IBM and Sun also are pushing hard into Web services, advancing their own technology strategies and tools.
Security will be an important part of that emerging market. Market researcher ZapLink said on Thursday that the Extensible Markup Language ( XML) and Web Services security market would top $4.4 billion in 2006.
I do believe that in the long run, upgrading to .NET and C# is a must for anyone using current MS technologies.
For Java developers, it's an expensive step backwards, of course.
But if you're MS-only, in spite of the cost and pain, .NET is going to be a major step forward.
Once the bugs are worked out, once .NET server is finally released and then debugged, eventually .NET will be a net plus.
It's important for all developers to start looking into .NET now. Only by working with it can you know it's good and bad.
Ping.
I agree.
They left Visual FoxPro out of .NET, which is a little troubling. But, VFP does work with Web Services, so we'll see.
More cost and pain from Microsoft. Oh well. .NET will be worth it this time.
That's a mighty tall claim there, pardner, considering the horse you rode in on.
The only problem with .NET is that Microsoft did not relinquish control of its patents to the W3C or some other organization as a show of good will to prove that they don't want to turn .NET into a trojan horse. What happens to the mono project 6 months to a 2 years from now when it is starting to get mature? How do they know that Microsoft won't exercise its IP "rights" and crush them through litigation and not the marketplace? Seriously, there are no benefits to using .NET right now if you aren't already stuck developing for Windows. IMO, .NET will probably just be a clean way to write Windows apps in such a way that the sophomore CS major intern code monkeys can understand. Not that that's a bad thing. That's still a major leap forward for Microsoft.
I don't see that as a problem. I don't think many people working in FoxPro want to compile to the clr.
I think the entire concept of .NET supporting many languages is a bit of a joke, to be honest. I don't believe there is a business need to write Cobol on PCs.
.NET is about VB.NET and C#. The rest is all sales pitch.
And VB.NET is a major leap forward for VB.
Absolutely, it's important to blow off what the .NET salesmen say.
I've been shredded for not being pro-.NET enough by B2k and his fellow salesmen.
They claim it's ready for mission-critical work today!
You are right, the study didn't look at the costs of being under MS's thumb.
Maybe they should have.
Ah, that's right, you think I'm not pro-.NET enough.
All this pointing out that there is bad with the good is not allowed! No free thinking on your own allowed! NO balanced opinions of MS will be allowed!
Get back in line, Harr, and do what MS tells you. Just parrot the scripts MS puts out, like B2k does!
AS I have posted before, the market will most likely always be split and the competition is very healthy for both sides. Without .NET pushing Java and Java pushing .NET, not much will ever get done. I actually wish another large third party would join the market with a third competing technology. Frankly, I don't believe that the best ideas can be incorporated into only two product lines. Open source certainly is another venue for ideas, but we really need more.
And I'd say that's sales pitch.
Having looked into it myself . . .
And as this article seems to confirm.
Right, I diverge from your script by admitting that there is both good and bad about .NET. The bad is never to be admitted to, it shows signs of independent thought.
Remeber the thread Has anyone been involved in a large .net installation? recently?
Remember how it turned out that no one had completed any major implementations?
Not one. 3 or 4 cheerleaders who said it was 'way cool', but no actual success stories. "Look at the MS press releases" was the answer. In fact, rather than discuss .NET it became a thread largely dedicated to personal insults? That thread alone said more about .NET than I ever could.
But I believe .NET will get to where java is today, in 3 or 4 years.
Clearly, tho, it isn't there yet. Heck, as of this moment, the fact that .NET requires IIS is a deal-breaker for almost all serious work.
Absolutely correct. I had an application that took me eight weeks to code and test in ASP.
Converting it to ASP.NET took eight hours.
Rewriting the whole thing in Java would have taken at least two weeks, maybe longer.
That's the point, silly.
That fellow put out an open call for .NET success stories, and didn't get any.
If you did the same thing, only asked about Java success stories, you'd be inundated with responses and details.
The only folks using .NET now are the ones paid to try and make .NET work. And they aren't having any big successes yet, as far as anyone can tell. A few small successes, as I have myself had. A few small tools. But large-scale production systems. They're all running into serious problems.
Oh, sure, you MS salesmen *claim* great things. Then never point to one single example. Just trust ya'll, we're told.
Interesting. May I ask what sort of app?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
