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.
B2k threw out one quick line, but hasn't jumped in.
That thread will be fine, until the MS-only crowd shows back up. Then they will burn it to the ground, completing what they started with the very first response.
When the MS-only 'peasents with pitchforks' aren't around with the torches, that is.
The title meant, "this person on another discussion group tried to go from Window to Mac and found Mac's suck". And it wasn't even an article or a news story -- just a post by a person on another board!!! Talk about a lame, poorly-disguised attempt to start a flame war.
Clearly posted only as a slam at Apple. And the mac-heads didn't bite. Did not flame back.
And then, the name-calling by MS-only folks started in the first response. Then there were a dozen or so other posts that were very agressively anti-mac.
And still the mac-heads didn't flame back.
You blow off the first post, blow off the first name-calling, blow off the fact that even after the all that the mac-heads never flamed back.
The mac-heads never flamed back!
Get it? The flames come from MS-only people. And flames are a sure sign of an intellectually vacant position.
You're beyond hope. MS-only folks can do no wrong, non-MS techies can do no right.
OK now it's time for me to accuse you of reading a whole bunch of extra stuff into something.
Did you read the post?
Windows to Mac
"After 9 months of working on a Mac I am not impressed."
"My advice to you, Ken, is "Don't Do It" unless you're really in need of a migraine experience."
Again, it was *very* clear what the title meant. It meant he had gone from windows to mac, and was unhappy.
And once again, you're claiming that clear words don't have their obvious meanings. That post was a mac slam. Not even one with any authority, not an expert or a news story, just a post pulled from another board.
Your denial of this is even more instructive than your last denial of simple, obvious written english.
But you obviously can't be troubled to read the other 94 posts because as long as you don't go past 2 all the evidence is for you.
The first 2 posts in the entire thread were mac bashing and a flame calling all mac-heads names!
And you disregard those? The absolute perfect definition of convenient memory -- you ignore what started it.
And I *did* read the other posts. Did you? No flames back. NONE.
In detail:
So Cal Pubbie in post 21:
He was responding to the fact that he had already been insulted in the 2nd post, and he repeated other insults that you and I have both seen the MS-only people use here on FR. He didn't "invent" those insults. I've seen them thrown at mac-heads in a dozen or more threads.
Convenient for you to pretend he invented them.
Capt. Thom (quoting a friend of his) in post 54:
Yes, he quoted an email by someone else that called the writer of the piece an idiot.
Didn't flame anyone in the thread at all. Wasn't even a quote by him.
Toddhisattva in 55:
"Troll" is not a flame, it's a term that means someone who is 'trolling' or 'fishing' for trouble, only looking to start a flame war. And it was a very accurate description. In fact, the exact same point I'm making here. That thread was flame-bait, trolling. By MS-only folks who started out by insulting all mac-heads.
And you present *that* as the model for a good thread. This is *too* juicy.
Toddhisattva in 56: Because it doesn't run on such shitty equipment.
This is the biggest stretch of all. He calls AMD and Intel machines 'shitty equipment', and that's a flame to others in the thread?
Dude, you ignore direct name-calling and trolling by MS-only folks, and get "insulted" by the slightest thing to hit your fancy.
The exact same thing that happened here, in fact.
This is very, very instructive, thank you.
You consider this thread 'trolling', if I'm not mistaken.
You considered this thread 'damning', even tho it concluded good things ("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.")
I was never insulting, said many positive things about .NET and openly asked politely for feedback.
I was greated with outright insults, called a "moron" and the like, and flames erupted to high heaven even tho I never once responded in kind.
On the other hand, that mac thread you *don't* consider trolling. It's conclusion was damning, a direct slam at macs. And it's very first poster out-right insulted all mac-heads, calling them names.
The mac-heads responded in a restrained manner, never responding in kind.
In both threads, flames only came from *one* specific group of people. Everyone else was restrained, and tried to stay adult and carry on a conversation.
Do you have one single ounce of objectivity in your body?
Well, in all fairness to Microsoft, Deutsche Bank just failed that demonstration yesterday.
I have no doubt that new development efforts using VB Dot Net are seeing some successes across the country (so there will be plenty of stellar implementations to choose from for the MS web site to legitimately post), however, my predictions of gloom and doom for the fools trying to "upgrade" from VB 6 to the new VB 7 .Net seem to be coming true. Dot Net simply isn't close-enough to VB 6 for a large-scale conversion to be risk-free.
Contrast that demonstratable risk for VB6/VB7 to the risk of using a new C++ compiler. The new C++ compiler will always compile the previous version's code. Not so with Dot Net.
Frankly, MS has embarassed themselves with their strategy here. They've gone from a solid compiler that had no trouble with previous versions of VB to one that can't manage 60% of the old version's code. Essentially they've kept the VB family name but dropped "true" VB in favor of a brand new version 1 language. Either that or else they don't know how to design in backwards compatibility anymore.
This is going to cost VB shops many fortunes (hopefully spent on my firm fixing what's been broken by MS).
Of course, MS is also a threat to pull backwards compatibility again when they release the next version of Dot Net. Is it by design or is it that incompetence has finally seized the day with MS designers?
Yes, you're right, absolutely, this doesn't mean .NET doesn't work. This is just an indication that DB blew it this one time. Dot NET will make it, I am certain. It's just going to take some time, like any new tech.
That's why I'm trying to find and talk with some people working on these implementations. I'd like to know how it's going, how far along .NET really is, what stage it really is at.
The MS website's case studies don't give any details at all, and just claim everything is peachy on all these projects, not one single little problem!
Yeah, I've heard *that* one from project managers before . . .
The folks here in this thread repeated those claims, in fact. The MS sales pitch is that it *is* ready for prime-time, today.
I'm hoping to find out how close to reality that sales pitch is.
I reviewed 3 mission-critical apps for Fortune 500 companies this week. Seems to be working far better than their J2EE apps. Took half the time to develop. Faster execution times. One of them has over a million transactions in an hour.
Without going into any details that would get you in trouble, can you tell me more?
I won't admit that because that's not how hacking code works. The quality of the code is what determines how readily it can be hacked. If the open source code is of low quality then it can be easily hacked. If closed source is of low quality, it can be easily hacked. Once again, it is the quality of the code that determines the hackability.
The design for combination locks is completely "open-source".
Yet it's still secure.
Well it's clear what happened here in this thread, then. Same thing that happened there. The MS-only folks tried real hard to start a flame war, and when they failed they bailed.
You ignore outright insults by MS-only folks, and call any slight thing that takes your fancy an "insult" to MS-only folks.
"I see you're doing it X way. Did you know if you use this solution you could have saved your boss X hours and X dollars?"
You see *that* common tech conversation as an insult. But calling people whiners and morons and maroons? Nah, that's to be ignored -- as long as it was posted by an MS-only person.
Because it's all in who says it, with you. If an MS-only person says the sky is green, you go to the wall defending them, refusing to admit that the sky isn't green even after the original poster admitted the sky is green. If an MS-only person calls names, you don't even *see* it. If a non-MS techie so much as asks uncomfortable questions, you hit the ceiling.
A real piece of work, you are.
I wonder, is it completely impossible to have a tech discussion with MS-only types without it becoming a flame war?
As I said, that thread ended up "playing nice" because the Mac-heads didn't flame back and the MS-only folks left, obviously because they don't want to take part in an actual tech conversation.
They tried to start a flame war, failed, and bailed.
You must be *so* proud. Apparently you consider that the model of a perfect thread. Because the MS-only folks *failed* in their attempts to start a flame war!
And you call that playing nice. Ya'll slap the mac-heads, and the mac-heads don't slap back. Beauty.
I haven't seen that deep a level of denial since talking to Ds about Clinton.
No.
The 'key' is not public.
Only the security mechanism. Just like with combo locks.
You know how to crack a combo lock -- just need 3 numbers. Yet you need to know the 'key'.
With software, they use 'keys' that are 128 bit and bigger these days. Which still can be cracked, but it's awfully difficult.
But having the source code to the internal mechanism in no way helps you crack that key.
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.
