Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Microsoft .Net software's hidden cost
Yahoo ^ | Sat Jun 22,11:11 AM ET | Joe Wilcox

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 resources from CNET:
 ?  CNET News.com: Top CIOs
 ?  Tech gifts for Father's Day, click here!
 ?  Find a job you love. Over 1 million postings.
 ?  Live Tech Help. Submit your question now.
CNET Newsletters:
News.com Daily Dispatch
News.Context (weekly)
News.com Investor (Daily)

More Newsletters
(CNet/ZDNet Privacy Policy)
News.com Video:
 ?  Could Red Hat be the next Microsoft?
  
According to a new cost model devised by Gartner, the cost of moving older Windows programs to .Net may range from 40 percent to as much as 60 percent of the cost of developing the programs in the first place.

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.


TOPICS: Technical
KEYWORDS: c; microsoft; net; techindex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 next last
To: CLRGuy
Actually it can.

Hello again.

We've been thru this. Even Bush2k has admitted that there is no .NET equivilant of an applet. Web Forms are *not* even close. But whatever.

Altho I'll ask you, since I can't get any details from anyone else --

I'm looking for a success story of .NET deployment similar to the one I just posted.

You must know of at least one successful .NET implementation of a major production system?

51 posted on 06/24/2002 12:13:20 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Upon further discussion, it turned out he could have done it better, faster and cheaper in Java

A. It would have taken him longer.
B. It would have been more costly.
C. There's no proof that it would have been any more scalable or robust under Java.
52 posted on 06/24/2002 12:52:22 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Did I say Web Form? Nope I said Winform, there's a HUGE difference.

Admitedly webforms are just html and javascript.

Winforms are fully functional independent rich client applications.

And yes I know of several large scale applications currently being implemented on the .NET platform. I've worked on a few that have been mentioned earlier in this thread.

I know of several others, but because of my position and the company I work for it would be imprudent, and unprofessional in the fourum to mention them by name. I'm sure as a professional you can understand that.
53 posted on 06/24/2002 12:54:30 PM PDT by CLRGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Please. There is no way that database statements embedded in code (which make programs harder to maintain, BTW - since you have to touch your code every time there is a database change) will run faster than compiled stored procedures.

Don't waste your time with Harr: It's obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about. As you've correctly pointed out, stored procedures are faster precisely because they're precompiled and the SQL engine doesn't have to build a query plan -- it's done in advance, at the time you add the stored proc to the database. Likewise, stored procs are not susceptible to SQL injection attacks because all of the incoming data is considered literal and not part of the query semantics.
54 posted on 06/24/2002 12:57:11 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr; CLRGuy
Welcome to reality, Harr...

.NET Zero Deployment: Security and Versioning Models in the Windows Forms Engine Help You Create and Deploy Smart Clients
55 posted on 06/24/2002 1:05:40 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CLRGuy
I know of several others, but because of my position and the company I work for it would be imprudent, and unprofessional in the fourum to mention them by name.

Actually, a developer would be encouraged to share their opinions and experiences with new technologies, especially one like this that is trying to gain acceptance.

I talk openly here about the projects I work on, and give as much detail as you'd like. My company loves that, in that it means I'm out here learning 'best practices' and exchanging and gaining knowledge. All the developers I know are the same. We *talk* about what we build.

In my experience, only a salesman would claim to know about great things they won't talk about.

And -- I thought that the 'WinForms' I read about didn't run in the browser, but had to be downloaded to the client and ran locally as a local application. Very, very different technology, more akin to a java application without the 'Java Web Start'. Am I mistaken?

56 posted on 06/24/2002 1:12:30 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
" people specifically paid "

"Paid"? Microsoft PAYS Partners??? I want my check!

57 posted on 06/24/2002 1:23:40 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Yeah, exactly, thanks for that link.

The 'Windows Forms' are more akin to the 'Java Web Start' tech. Downloading an app that executes locally on the client as a local app.

Very, very different from an Applet executing only in a browser, with no ability to affect the local machine.

58 posted on 06/24/2002 1:23:42 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
As you've correctly pointed out, stored procedures are faster precisely because they're precompiled and the SQL engine doesn't have to build a query plan -- it's done in advance, at the time you add the stored proc to the database.

You've never done any DB work, so you probably don't realize that the delay is the actual processing of the data. The DB has to build temporary tables and does all the number crunching in a very, very inefficient manner, processing data relationally.

In an language like C# or Java, you do number crunching in an OO manner, optimized to the specific report to be churned.

For any complex report, the DB will be the absolute slowest way to number crunch possible.

59 posted on 06/24/2002 1:27:57 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"ASP, even ASP.NET, doesn't scale very well."

Where is your proof?

Harr, listen, guy, you make such accusations and then claim that "everybody knows it", but Microsoft and millions of people have the benefit of success. Plus, I don't know it, and after 20+ years developing systems, and 23 years using Microsoft products and technologies, I totally disagree with you, so I guess it is "everyone but PatrioticAmerican"?

If Java is the only thing going that works, why are there so many people benefiting from Microsoft products and technologies?

60 posted on 06/24/2002 1:30:47 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.
61 posted on 06/24/2002 1:31:55 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000; Dominic Harr
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!
62 posted on 06/24/2002 1:38:13 PM PDT by CLRGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
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 . . .

63 posted on 06/24/2002 1:44:57 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: discostu
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.

64 posted on 06/24/2002 1:46:57 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: CLRGuy
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.

65 posted on 06/24/2002 1:56:26 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: All
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.

66 posted on 06/24/2002 2:01:11 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.
67 posted on 06/24/2002 2:13:05 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Well by your standards EJB and J2EE are not as mature as COM+ and MTS.

They were around before the spec for j2ee even started to be written.

They are the core building blocks of buisness applications in the .NET Framework.

The codebase and process hasn't changed one iota.

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


68 posted on 06/24/2002 2:14:08 PM PDT by CLRGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.
69 posted on 06/24/2002 2:16:09 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: discostu
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.

70 posted on 06/24/2002 2:19:44 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.
71 posted on 06/24/2002 2:23:07 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: CLRGuy
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.

72 posted on 06/24/2002 2:23:32 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: discostu
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.

73 posted on 06/24/2002 2:26:20 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.
74 posted on 06/24/2002 2:36:47 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: discostu
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*.

75 posted on 06/24/2002 2:44:25 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.
76 posted on 06/24/2002 2:51:34 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
I notice as you get deeper and deeper into sticking by your guns and defending your position no matter how pointless your estimate keeps shrinking. First you were at a week and now your down to a day. I'm sure in a few more posts it'll be an hour. Thus proving my point right there, we know so little about this app that you can't even stick to your own estimate.
77 posted on 06/24/2002 2:53:39 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: discostu
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.

78 posted on 06/24/2002 3:03:07 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.

79 posted on 06/24/2002 3:11:00 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000; Dominic Harr
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.

80 posted on 06/24/2002 3:15:10 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
Dude, you're such a goombah. I still say the back end was involved in the original 8 week production time, along with things like spec review and design which tends to drag things out a bit. And I still think it's incredibly rude to shave people's estimates on project you know nothing about.

I'm not selling anything. I haven't worked with .Net and since I think n-tiered distributed applications are annoying I hope I never do. You're the only one on these threads that ever tries to sell anything, and what you're trying to sell is your own brilliance which it turns out is the ultimate vaporware. If anybody says anything good about anything from MS you're all over them and accuse them of everything under the sun. You really need to ask your shrink why you have such a hard-on for MS. If you can't look at that list of companies using .Net and realize that the product is doing pretty good then you clearly have issues, deep expensive issues. That's nobody's problem but yours. I always worry about people that spend long hours complaining about everyone around them, especially when they're conservative, armed nutjobs are inherently more frightening than unarmed nutjobs.
81 posted on 06/24/2002 3:15:52 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
How do they know that Microsoft won't exercise its IP "rights" and crush them through litigation and not the marketplace?

That's why I'm studying it like hell right now! ;-)

82 posted on 06/24/2002 3:16:17 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Really, that's funny. I used to be a hardcore MS-basher. Spending time on FR around the Macheads and the Harr's is what changed my tune. The more of their ravings I read the more I started to question the sanity of defacto hatred of MS. Since that reconsideration I've decided that MS isn't the best company on the planet, they play orugh and sometimes even illegal, and their software has issues, but overall they aren't too bad and their stuff doesn't suck half as bad as the bashers say it does.
83 posted on 06/24/2002 3:19:32 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
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.

YES!

Hats off to you, P.A. That's what I'm talking about. To be totally honest, I want .NET to succeed. That forces Sun to step up. It forces OpenSource to get better. It's a win-win-win as far as I'm concerned.

Geeks like me want to battle it out at the workstation and in the cleanroom, NOT the courtroom.

Let the games begin!

84 posted on 06/24/2002 3:23:36 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
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.

Please see my #84.

85 posted on 06/24/2002 3:25:27 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I hear you. And don't expect me to sling arrows at you for this opinion, either.

The way I see it, whatever works for you is what you should use. That's how I operate.

86 posted on 06/24/2002 3:26:47 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
You're far to sane for these threads. Run now while you still can.
87 posted on 06/24/2002 3:28:12 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
Ever hear of business requirements? Systems analysis? Changing user specifications? A good portion of that 8 weeks was irreducible, regardless of platform.

Add to that unreasonable managers who can't make up their minds on how they want an app to work and dissatisfied users who will complain no matter how well the apps actually works.

Thankfully, I'm now self-employed! ;-)

88 posted on 06/24/2002 3:32:36 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I still say the back end was involved in the original 8 week production time, along with things like spec review and design which tends to drag things out a bit.

You are correct. Coding the business logic in the SQL Server stored procedures took a good part of the time. For the record it is an investment reporting application - a lot of crosstabulation and summarization. Some of the logic came from a legacy MS Access reporting system, other parts had to be written from scratch.

Total application development time: 8 weeks.

Total traditional ASP coding time: About 1 week.

Total ASP.NET conversion time: 8 hours.

Total time spent on three upgrades since: About 1 hour.

The decision to build a 2-tier application was a deliberate part of the design, as a 3-tier architecture would have been overkill for this project. Scalability was not a design consideration - any growth in the database size will be overwhelmed by future `increases in hardware speed.

The typical run time for the set of eight SQL Server stored procedures kicked off by ASP.NET is about 10 seconds. Maybe if I had used Java and an application server it would run in 5 seconds. Hey, a 50% increase! A new benchmark for Oracle's ads...LOL!

Now y'all can argue from a coherent set of specs...

89 posted on 06/24/2002 3:33:38 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr; All
Hey, I'm just wondering... I've seen no posts on FR about the hidden costs of switching everyone from Windows/Office over to Linux/Star (most costs incurred by expensive to keep and difficult to work with open source training/support professionals).

I've seen few words on FR about the Alexis de Tocqueville Foundation's study correctly noting that it's difficult to characterize Linux and other open source software as inherently more secure since anyone and everyone can look at the source code.

I have seen a lot of conspiracy theories about all the illegal behind-the-scenes Micro$oft does, but I've never seen anything paranoid regarding open source software (like the idea that since open source software "powers" the Internet, a left wing group of anarchists could use that code to write a crippling virus that destroys all Internet communication and commerce in protest of globalization - which is much more plausible that Micro$oft sabotaging Real Player by including Windows Media Player bundled in the OS).

I'm just throwing that out for everyone.
90 posted on 06/24/2002 3:35:52 PM PDT by Scott McCollum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Well, 'tu, you might be right. Since I live, eat, breathe, and sleep on this stuff, my pragmatism may be a bit of a wet blanket for some.
91 posted on 06/24/2002 3:37:12 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
The 'Windows Forms' are more akin to the 'Java Web Start' tech. Downloading an app that executes locally on the client as a local app. Very, very different from an Applet executing only in a browser, with no ability to affect the local machine.

The noticeable difference, Harr, is that Java applets run within a browser frame. These WinForms don't. As for security, WinForms apps have no capability on the local machine: They are constrained by the CLR. They can't read/write files outside of their scratch directory. In short, they can't do anything to destabilize the machine.
92 posted on 06/24/2002 3:41:28 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves
You know he's going to think we worked this out in Freepmail. Investment stuff, a little hairy but nothing viscious. That's about how I was seeing it. DB design and execution are the important part, that's the actual data, fronts aren't too hard. And of course crunching number back in SQL is the right answer, if only because that's probably a bigger computer than the box the front end is working on.

It'll be interesting to see what he says now that we actually have enough info to be throwing out some estimates.
93 posted on 06/24/2002 3:42:50 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Scott McCollum
We've had some threads on the AdTF stuff, they were pretty vicsious. Those kind of revolved around out of the box AdTF is right, but every Unix administrator in the known world has his own security code that he patches in and does NOT distribute. So that's kind of a toss up.

Of course you realize that since you've brought up training and conversion costs that makes you evil, clearly a MS dupe probably in their pay and sent out to secretly talk up their clearly inferior products base on lied and FUD... at least that's what the bashers always say.
94 posted on 06/24/2002 3:47:54 PM PDT by discostu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
"Actually, a developer would be encouraged to share their opinions and experiences with new technologies, especially one like this that is trying to gain acceptance. "

Harr, you are sounding like a total computer geek and not a consultant. Building apps is far more about the business and not the technologies. Such things as confidentiality are seriously important. Part of that is not publicly disclosing information. Doing so may jeopardize your market position by letting your competitors know what you doing such that they may also do it. Also, clients may not appreciate your public relationship with them. Some companies prefer to have people believe that they are completely responsible for their computer systems. Discretion is paramount. You asking for confidential information is tantamount to journalists asking the Defense Department for the secret war plans and complaining when they don’t get it. Any company than can release large project information does in the form of a press release, in corporate press packet, or through the various corporate communications mediums; all of which are publicly available and usually on the company’s web site. Again, you really need to do your own research; it is an easy thing to do.

95 posted on 06/24/2002 3:59:09 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
The DB has to build temporary tables and does all the number crunching in a very, very inefficient manner, processing data relationally. In an language like C# or Java, you do number crunching in an OO manner, optimized to the specific report to be churned. For any complex report, the DB will be the absolute slowest way to number crunch possible.

That's an interesting straw man, Harr, but it has little to do with anything. Jeeves never said he was doing his report-formatting in the stored procs. He said he's retrieving the basic data and then dumping it into documents on the middle tier. How you twisted that to mean he was doing the reports on the backend tier is a mystery.
96 posted on 06/24/2002 4:06:24 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Dominic Harr
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.

This is precisely the reason I'd never hire you, Harr. You confuse writing the code with the entire application development process. Coding is one of the last things you do. In a lot of ways, it's the least important.

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.

Nobody's trying to sell you anything, Harr. You're entrenched in your ignorance. No, most people are here to prevent you from spreading more lies and making estimates that pull out of your rear end...
97 posted on 06/24/2002 4:26:42 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
Know what would REALLY be cool? IBM creating a mainframe version just for mainframes! Imagine the big iron ideas that have yet to introduced into the server market, and there are some. I have always loved microcomputers, but I also was working with mainframes and knew there were serious differences.
98 posted on 06/24/2002 5:00:24 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Scott McCollum
Oh, we've trashed that subject as well. ;>
99 posted on 06/24/2002 5:03:35 PM PDT by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: discostu
I still say the back end was involved in the original 8 week production time, along with things like spec review and design which tends to drag things out a bit.

You appear to have been correct, and I was incorrect in this one detail.

But I was still right about the point -- what was done in ASP could have been done better or faster in Java, but he was working for an MS-only shop and prevented from using a better solution if it wasn't an MS product.

What took 1 week in ASP could have been done better in Java or ASP.NET in 1 day -- what it actually took to do it in ASP.NET, which does indeed develop as fast as Java. It still seems clear that he was paid to use an inferior MS solution when a better, non-MS solution was available, and eventually had to upgrade that solution. But he was not allowed to upgrade until MS had made something better.

So you were right about the one detail -- it wasn't 8 weeks of work that should have taken a day, it was 1 week of work that should have taken a day. I did misunderstand that one part of the estimate. As I made clear to you, I was only talking about the ASP part, and asked him that specifically. I apparently misunderstood when he said it took 8 weeks, and thought he was referring to the piece that was replaced in a few hours, as he said. His original statement was led me awry, and I missed that.

Now I wonder, are you likewise willing to admit where you were wrong about the main debate point?

Or are you only worried about the small things, and not the big ones?

The funniest thing here is, I am *trying* to be positive about .NET here in this thread. But you folks have made the entire thread an attack on me. I think, looking back, I've been polite and honest. I've even been up-beat on .NET.

I think .NET is a good, new tech. Both Java and ASP.NET beats the heck out of the old ASP. C# is the best MS technology yet for web development.

But the interesting thing about the MS-only crowd is how they won't allow me to even qualify my support with caution. Their defensive reaction makes me think .NET may be in some trouble I'm unaware of. Salesmen who are confident in a product usually can't wait to talk your ear off giving you details about their product.

You can't have missed how they're attacking any suggestion that a brand new tech like .NET has issues. I haven't said one negative thing about .NET here in this thread, have I?

I do, indeed, feel Java is better. Is that opinion just not allowed in your world? I do feel that .NET is good. I've been very, very clear.

Is that just not pro-.NET enough for you? Is it necessary to be a complete cheerleader, in your mind?

I'm not here selling anything -- especially not my own brilliance. I'm here asking questions, and trying to encourage people to look into .NET.

They *are* here selling .NET, and as such are making promises about .NET that are unsubstantiated. I am only asking them *about* those promises, asking for some sort of subastatiation beyond press releases.

I'll be interested to see your response. I've been polite, honest and forthright. It appears you've been anything but, up until now.

100 posted on 06/24/2002 8:07:47 PM PDT by Dominic Harr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-302 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson