Microsoft .Net software's hidden cost

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.

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.

if you consider thata complete description remind me never to test your code. All I see is the languages and tools, nothing on the size of the DB or front end, nothing on the kind of data. There's a big difference between a reporting app that pulls data out of something like a home CD inventory and one that pulls out of a fully flushed HR/ payroll system. I know governmental payroll reports that will take you a week just to figure out what the hell data they're looking for. To even pretend you can give development estimates off of what scant data Jeeves put out is patently rediculous.

Chris Sells is DA MAN! I was talking to him just this weekend about zero deployment, I'm writing an application right now that uses this.

There are few advantages to being able to host the application directly in the browser. Winform applicaitons written in this way are a much more powerful paradigm as they allow users to configure the level of trust that they want to give the application developer, instead of locking everybody into a level that allows you to do little that is useful.

I would submit that there is nothing that a java applet can do (beside cross platform at the moment) that can't be done better with a winform, for that reason I don't see microsoft in a rush to make an "applet", although they could. The browser wars are over.. and the browser will largely become obsolete in the near future with webservices and remoting allowing for a much more robust applicaiton platform.

And Harr, I sign an NDA on almost every project I work on, I don't go touting off about what I do for a reason, not because I want to sound cool. You ignore the fact that there have been > 20 above people cite examples of places where there are large .NET applicaitons in production.

Oh.. and I know Ari Bixhorn.. Ari Bixhorn ownz joo!

so I guess it is "everyone but PatrioticAmerican"?

It seems to remain, "everyone who isn't specifically paid to use MS solutions even when better, cheaper, faster technologies are available".

If you're not a 'tech' guy but an 'MS-only' guy, you surely disagree with me that there are non-MS techs superior to MS techs!!!

And personally, I don't believe any of your claims to be a developer, any more than I believe B2k's claims.

I think you're both salesmen who would make anything up to try and fraudulently sell MS-only solutions. So of *course* you disagree with me . . .

All I see is the languages and tools, nothing on the size of the DB or front end, nothing on the kind of data.

He said it was a web form that allowed the user to enter parms, and then passed the parms on to the SQLServer stored procs. He said the app then returned links to the user.

This is a very complete description, and yes, I could build a prototype from that info.

I've had less to go on at least once!!! And that app turned out to be a smash success.

You ignore the fact that there have been > 20 above people cite examples of places where there are large .NET applicaitons in production.

Where? Not here in this thread, and not in that other thread where that other fellow specifically asked for such testimonials. No, there hasn't been a single one. That's why we keep asking. The only 'case studies' we can find are the ones on MS's site, and they give no details what-so-ever. They're little more than press releases, and largely just on small tools.

And if you think that a Windows-only downloaded 'WinForm' is the equivilant of an applet, then it only reinforces what I think. The 'Windows-only' problem alone kills the idea of building an internet solution with a WinForm. That kills me, 'Windows-only' guys see no problem with a 'Windows-only' web solution. While the market rejects the idea entirely.

You, too, seem far more 'salesman' than developer. I signed an NDA. I don't share critical business info. We're not talking about critical business data.

You're hiding even the simplest implementation details. The stuff that is *not* in any way sensitive. The stuff you'd *have* to be evangelizing if .NET works.

You sound like a salesman. "It works, trust me! I just can't show you anything or give you any details!"

Well MS has burned too many people in the past. Their past solutions are widely known for being poor quality and far from the 'best'. So don't be surprised if the world outside the walls of Redmond react very differently than you expect.

Bottom line:

You want to claim .NET is ready for prime-time today, then be prepared to give specifics and offer proof.

Ya'll are trying to sell a brand-new, untested solution.

If you just continue to say, "It works, but we can't give you any examples or details", then good luck!

You're going to need it.

Yeah, how many tables are these reports generating from? How many different reports? What's the level of number crunching going on? What's the structure of the report? Governmental or private? How exacting are the formating requirements?

That description is exactly nothing. You could NOT build a prototype from that, you don't know the first thing about the data, what's your parameter list gonna look like?

And don't BS us saying you've written a program based on less. That's not possible. While I've worked with some pretty skinny specs in my time I at least knew what kind of data the app was manipulating. This description doesn't give us that.

Oh please. Why should anybody give you any info. The first thing you do is come up with some BS excuse why their answer isn't "valid". Look back at MS's list. Those are some pretty big companies throwing some pretty big systems out there. If you don't want to believe it fine, but if you're just gonna stick your finger in your ear and scream "NANANANANANA" don't try to tell us we aren't answering your request. You've been answered, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean they aren't answers, just means you're pigheaded.

Yeah, how many tables are these reports generating from?

Dude, they're stored procs.

You don't need to know any of that to kick them off.

You simply pass parms to them. He said they were already written, and his ASP tool just had to pass the parms to the procs.

That's all you need to know to build that.

It's *very* simple to do, in fact. In C# *or* Java.

But you do need to know that to judge the scope of the application, which in turn relates to the development time. From how I read the description it wasn't just a front end, they did the back too. I think you're grossly over simplifying what he outlined. Which just goes to show how little true info he really gave. Clearly not enough to be questioning his estimates.

I don't see what's so immature about that. Can you explain?

.NET is a brand-new, untested platform.

Drop the sales pitch. If you don't plan to discuss details or give examples, then all we can do is wait. Maybe you're right, and the entire world is building these fabulous systems that no one knows about except a few folks who can't say a word.

Unlikely as heck, but whatever.

"Trust me, it works. I can't give examples, and won't give you any details, but it works. Now give me a check."

Good luck.

From how I read the description it wasn't just a front end, they did the back too.

No, go back and read.

The 'back end' was a SQLServer db with stored procs. The code itself was only 2-tiered, not 3-tiered as I would have done. They put the 'business logic' in the SPs, in the DB. I would have seperated that logic out into the middle-tier, personally, but that wasn't the project he described.

Seriously, he gave plenty of detail, and any decent developer could have built it. A web form that sent procs to an SP, and then wrote links to the screen.

Very simple stuff. Not rocket science at all.

Let's look at exactly what he said:

It was a custom reporting application. The user enters parameters into a Web Form, then ASP.NET fires off a series of SQL Server stored procedures. A background process runs MS Access to generate Word .RTF report files, and ASP.NET provides the user with links to the newly created files. Not a huge and complex enterprise application by any means, but there were plenty of tricks to work around.

From what I see they wrote the front end and the stored procedures, which probably means they also owned the DB tables. 2 tiers as you put it. As I've said OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND MAYBE SOMEDAY YOU'LL ACTUALLY LISTEN BUT I DOUBT IT, because we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the actual data we know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the scope of the project. And any software professional that actually knows which orifice to point at the screen knows there isn't enough info here to estimate with much less actually start writing code.

Maybe simple stuff, maybe not. It would take a week to do this if the data were something simple like checking account info. You try writing this stuff to pull TWC or TRS data (Texas school stuff, all the info's on the web but if you read it you will bleed from the eyes, real nasty stuff) and come back and tell me it'll take a week, go ahead try it.
The size and scope of the data and complexity of the reports is a major factor. And if you don't know that then it's clear all this "experience" you've outlined on countless threads is a lie.

Read Jeeves' Post 33:

The ASP (VBScript - yuk!) database code was all rewritten in VB.NET - it really wasn't ported so much as used as a model for the ASP.NET version. The Transact-SQL stored procedures required no changes, nor did the existing MS Access reports.

He was very specific. You're incorrect, and must have missed some of the details.

The stored procs and existing reports were not part of the '.NET' app, and didn't require any changes. We're only talking about the form.

You're not even a developer, if I remember, but a tester, yes?

This is plenty of info to give an accurate estimate of time. And a day or two would be *plenty*.

All this says is that the port over change of the front end didn't require a change on the back. Which is such an absolute no brainer as to be completely unworth mentioning.

They weren't part of the .Net front end. But they WERE and ARE part of the application. I think you're mixing his estimates. He said 8 weeks to write the whole thing, 8 hours to do the port, and guessed 2 weeks to rewrite the front end in Java.

I'm a QA Engineer, that means I also work on specs and do a lot of really boring but highly necessary meetings where stuff like DB design and application scope are discussed. That's why I know that unless you know what type of data you're working with all estimates are 100% BS made up off the top of your head. There's only one person on this board that knows what kind of data Jeeves is working with, his estimate was two weeks.

First you were at a week and now your down to a day.

I said the same thing from the beginning.

I said it would take *him* a week, if he were not very experienced with Java. But it sounds like *I* could do it in a day or two.

You didn't read his posts, and now you aren't reading mine.

I submit *you* are the one trying so hard to 'stick by your guns' that you're backpeddling.

You claimed the back-end was involved. I showed you it wasn't, you changed tacks.

Forget it, dude. Once again, a thread has boiled down to MS-only people trying to sell *me* on MS solutions, while everyone else has abandoned the thread.

Ya'll haven't sold anyone else, either.

I'm the only one left willing to even talk to ya'll, it appears.

Unless you've got some new substance to add, I'm going to let this thread die.

He was clear, you didn't understand the conversation, and chose to criticize me because you don't like my opinion that there are better technologies out there.

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.

I've done just that, sans .NET of course (through Mono). Developers must keep current no matter who makes paradigm shifts in languages. And I'm happy to say that I've quickly picked up C# since it's so close to both C++ (my proggie of choice) and Java. Now I guess I'll start tinkering with C++ .NET.

Otherwise known as damning with faint praise...

Wow!

Harr posted an article and his response did not disparage MS one bit. Yet this is what you reply with?

I still dispise competitors using the courts as a field to compete and I supported MS. But listening at MS "fans" around here makes me wonder why I did.

Arrogance is unbecoming, especially if you don't own it.

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.