Why is dot-net so unpopular among CIO's
-
Am I hearing this right?[^] Norman Fung
Do you plan to deploy Microsoft .NET technology in your server operating environments? Hmmm. When I think of .NET, I think primarily of client software. I guess it's a biased perception fed by either the fact that I don't look in the right places to see .NET being used in server applications, or there's a marketing bias from companies like Microsoft to viewing .NET applications as client stuff. Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing YAPO
-
One possibility is the growing dissatisfaction with the upgrade mill that MS has people on. One recent sales presentation I sat in on as a consultant was pitting several windows vendors against a *nix vendor. The customer currently had a 8 year old *nix system. The *nix vendor went last, and one of his points was actually quite good: We put your current system in in 1997. What were you running on your PC in 1997, Windows 95? What do you run today, Windows XP? Did you run Windows 98 and Windows 2000 too? Do you still have the same PC? How many have you bought in the time that our same server has been running your business 24/7? How much have you spent on upgraded software, virus protection, etc? A lot of people who had been convinced that they wanted a Windows based solution started thinking differently.
Bingo. I need only look at engineers (not software engineers, mind you!), who (after >30 years of FORTRAN) were only just getting used to VB6 and now must move to [something].NET to see the danger in jumping on whatever the current fad is. Joel (the "on software" Joel, can't pronounce nor spell the last name) did an article on that a while back, "smoke and flash" or some such title - considered programmer fads as largely harmful distractions.
Shog9
I'm not the Jack of Diamonds... I'm not the six of spades. I don't know what you thought; I'm not your astronaut...
-
One possibility is the growing dissatisfaction with the upgrade mill that MS has people on. One recent sales presentation I sat in on as a consultant was pitting several windows vendors against a *nix vendor. The customer currently had a 8 year old *nix system. The *nix vendor went last, and one of his points was actually quite good: We put your current system in in 1997. What were you running on your PC in 1997, Windows 95? What do you run today, Windows XP? Did you run Windows 98 and Windows 2000 too? Do you still have the same PC? How many have you bought in the time that our same server has been running your business 24/7? How much have you spent on upgraded software, virus protection, etc? A lot of people who had been convinced that they wanted a Windows based solution started thinking differently.
But what did he have to do to his 8 year old OS to make it do what the market required today? I agree update cycles today are silly , just look at Office. I found an old laptop w/ Office 97 on it a while back. Word doesn't do anything new for me in 2003, I type , it prints. I email. Done. .netter
-
A circa 1997 UNIX system that has not been upgraded would be more than a little insecure - think telneting to port 25 and getting a root prompt. Exactly how many UNIX vendors give away upgrades? Ryan.
-
But what did he have to do to his 8 year old OS to make it do what the market required today? I agree update cycles today are silly , just look at Office. I found an old laptop w/ Office 97 on it a while back. Word doesn't do anything new for me in 2003, I type , it prints. I email. Done. .netter
Upgrade the box and the business software to support new CISP encryption standards for credit card processing. There were some other things, but +90% of the upgrade was being driven by that requirement. Point of fact is that the vendor could probably have updated the original software to include the CISP support, but even they need upgrade revenue, just not as much obviously.
-
If you're a registered licensee, any of them that I've worked with. And a professional admin doesn't leave unneeded services running.
Mark Tutt wrote: And a professional admin doesn't leave unneeded services running. I guess professional admins were pretty rare 10 years ago, but fair point, a good admin could lock down most machines. Mark Tutt wrote: If you're a registered licensee, any of them that I've worked with Only ever worked with Junior UNIXes, I assumed commercial ones tie you into ongoing support deals. Ryan.
-
One possibility is the growing dissatisfaction with the upgrade mill that MS has people on. One recent sales presentation I sat in on as a consultant was pitting several windows vendors against a *nix vendor. The customer currently had a 8 year old *nix system. The *nix vendor went last, and one of his points was actually quite good: We put your current system in in 1997. What were you running on your PC in 1997, Windows 95? What do you run today, Windows XP? Did you run Windows 98 and Windows 2000 too? Do you still have the same PC? How many have you bought in the time that our same server has been running your business 24/7? How much have you spent on upgraded software, virus protection, etc? A lot of people who had been convinced that they wanted a Windows based solution started thinking differently.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. I don't believe Microsoft forces anyone to upgrade. For the *nix comparison to be fair they would need to compare similar system tasks. I have been at companies that still use Windows NT 3.1 on the original machine that it was installed on. If the person is looking to run the latest web applications then I don't think they are still going to use the 100mhz *nix machine they have been clinging onto. Just because the system is an 8 year old *nix system doesn't mean that it's stayed there so long because it's *nix, but because it was not necassary to upgrade and was too vital to 'mess' with. - Drew
-
I don't think this is a fair comparison. I don't believe Microsoft forces anyone to upgrade. For the *nix comparison to be fair they would need to compare similar system tasks. I have been at companies that still use Windows NT 3.1 on the original machine that it was installed on. If the person is looking to run the latest web applications then I don't think they are still going to use the 100mhz *nix machine they have been clinging onto. Just because the system is an 8 year old *nix system doesn't mean that it's stayed there so long because it's *nix, but because it was not necassary to upgrade and was too vital to 'mess' with. - Drew
afinnell wrote: I don't believe Microsoft forces anyone to upgrade. yes, they do, they pretty much have to do it to survive. due to they way they've mixed their OS business to their apps they drive the MOffice market through the OS and the other way around. true, nowadays we use computers to do more and more complicated things, but "proper programming" (read "no bloatware") could produce a huge reduction is size while the apps would be much faster. Too bad "proper programming" and "shorter deadlines" are not really compatible. OGR
-
afinnell wrote: I don't believe Microsoft forces anyone to upgrade. yes, they do, they pretty much have to do it to survive. due to they way they've mixed their OS business to their apps they drive the MOffice market through the OS and the other way around. true, nowadays we use computers to do more and more complicated things, but "proper programming" (read "no bloatware") could produce a huge reduction is size while the apps would be much faster. Too bad "proper programming" and "shorter deadlines" are not really compatible. OGR
ogrig wrote: due to they way they've mixed their OS business to their apps they drive the MOffice market through the OS and the other way around. Don't all the office products work on all the Windows platforms from Win98? My point being that Microsoft is one of the most backward compatable software makers. If there are new features of the OS that a customer wants to take advantage of then sure they will need to upgrade, however, they can run Microsoft Exchange on an old Windows NT 4.0 system if they wish. ogrig wrote: true, nowadays we use computers to do more and more complicated things, but "proper programming" (read "no bloatware") could produce a huge reduction is size while the apps would be much faster. Too bad "proper programming" and "shorter deadlines" are not really compatible. While I can't argue against the speed of applications being a victim of deadlines, I think size has to do with content. Sure we could make applications smaller but they wouldn't have all the content customers want. Compare this to the game market. Sure they could make games like Super Metroid that fit onto a 32bit card, but people want to play the Metroid Prime in 3d with a wide variety of textures. Do you believe any amount of 'proper programming' could fit something with that much content onto a 32-bit rom? - Drew
-
ogrig wrote: due to they way they've mixed their OS business to their apps they drive the MOffice market through the OS and the other way around. Don't all the office products work on all the Windows platforms from Win98? My point being that Microsoft is one of the most backward compatable software makers. If there are new features of the OS that a customer wants to take advantage of then sure they will need to upgrade, however, they can run Microsoft Exchange on an old Windows NT 4.0 system if they wish. ogrig wrote: true, nowadays we use computers to do more and more complicated things, but "proper programming" (read "no bloatware") could produce a huge reduction is size while the apps would be much faster. Too bad "proper programming" and "shorter deadlines" are not really compatible. While I can't argue against the speed of applications being a victim of deadlines, I think size has to do with content. Sure we could make applications smaller but they wouldn't have all the content customers want. Compare this to the game market. Sure they could make games like Super Metroid that fit onto a 32bit card, but people want to play the Metroid Prime in 3d with a wide variety of textures. Do you believe any amount of 'proper programming' could fit something with that much content onto a 32-bit rom? - Drew
afinnell wrote: If there are new features of the OS that a customer wants to take advantage of then sure they will need to upgrade, however, they can run Microsoft Exchange on an old Windows NT 4.0 system if they wish. What's "new features of the OS" got to do with Word or Excel? And there the pressure doesn't come from your own need, but from not being able to share electronic documents with your clients or suppliers. Who cares that you might only need Arial 10, a header and a footer in your documents, you are still under pressure. I wasn't implying that a m-soft employee, or B.G. himself, will come and point a gun to your head, clever marketing is more about getting the ball rolling and starting the avalanche. afinnell wrote: Sure they could make games like Super Metroid that fit onto a 32bit card I think this proves my point: the push nowadays is to change the nature of IT into a fashion industry. Your example has nothing to do with what I call "normal computer apps" (things you use at tools), it is entertainment industry. And there novelty is of prime importance. Have a proper look at the differences between NT, W2K and XP, mostly at the configuration features. Than ask yourself: what is an extra feature and what is just fresh paint. Let's say you try to configure your dial up Internet account (don't laugh, some of us still use those). You are doing exactly the same thing and you don't get any extra functionality, but the interface is soooo different. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progress, but I also don't accept that something is an improvement just because they say so on the label. I remember browsing through the manual of the 1st version of Access. The lack of indexes was not only "a feature", it was one of their selling points: "Why use other products, that are slower and more buggy because they try to implement the so-called indexes? You don't need them, just resort the view every time". As an experienced developer I used to get very good results assuming that if I need something the feature will be implemented somewhere. And I used to find it (NOBODY reads the help :-) ) thinking about the best place for it. Guess what, in good tools I was right more often than not. Not anymore, now things get moved around just to create the "novelty effect", and that annoys me :mad: And when I started to work as a developer there was no way I could have done anything without understanding pretty much everything about my tools. Now it'
-
afinnell wrote: If there are new features of the OS that a customer wants to take advantage of then sure they will need to upgrade, however, they can run Microsoft Exchange on an old Windows NT 4.0 system if they wish. What's "new features of the OS" got to do with Word or Excel? And there the pressure doesn't come from your own need, but from not being able to share electronic documents with your clients or suppliers. Who cares that you might only need Arial 10, a header and a footer in your documents, you are still under pressure. I wasn't implying that a m-soft employee, or B.G. himself, will come and point a gun to your head, clever marketing is more about getting the ball rolling and starting the avalanche. afinnell wrote: Sure they could make games like Super Metroid that fit onto a 32bit card I think this proves my point: the push nowadays is to change the nature of IT into a fashion industry. Your example has nothing to do with what I call "normal computer apps" (things you use at tools), it is entertainment industry. And there novelty is of prime importance. Have a proper look at the differences between NT, W2K and XP, mostly at the configuration features. Than ask yourself: what is an extra feature and what is just fresh paint. Let's say you try to configure your dial up Internet account (don't laugh, some of us still use those). You are doing exactly the same thing and you don't get any extra functionality, but the interface is soooo different. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against progress, but I also don't accept that something is an improvement just because they say so on the label. I remember browsing through the manual of the 1st version of Access. The lack of indexes was not only "a feature", it was one of their selling points: "Why use other products, that are slower and more buggy because they try to implement the so-called indexes? You don't need them, just resort the view every time". As an experienced developer I used to get very good results assuming that if I need something the feature will be implemented somewhere. And I used to find it (NOBODY reads the help :-) ) thinking about the best place for it. Guess what, in good tools I was right more often than not. Not anymore, now things get moved around just to create the "novelty effect", and that annoys me :mad: And when I started to work as a developer there was no way I could have done anything without understanding pretty much everything about my tools. Now it'
ogrig wrote: I think this proves my point: the push nowadays is to change the nature of IT into a fashion industry. Your example has nothing to do with what I call "normal computer apps" (things you use at tools), it is entertainment industry. And there novelty is of prime importance. Have a proper look at the differences between NT, W2K and XP, mostly at the configuration features. Than ask yourself: what is an extra feature and what is just fresh paint. Let's say you try to configure your dial up Internet account (don't laugh, some of us still use those). You are doing exactly the same thing and you don't get any extra functionality, but the interface is soooo different. I think this kind of proves my point. You don't need to upgrade if you don't want to. The statements earlier made it seem like there was some technical barrier in the way of using an older product. Just because Microsoft has excellent Marketing skills (whether it is concidered good or evil, it still works) doesn't mean someone is technically forced to upgrade. Most versions of their Office suite is interchangable. I can write a doc in Word 2003 and have it open in 98 and vice versa. ogrig wrote: And when I started to work as a developer there was no way I could have done anything without understanding pretty much everything about my tools. Now it's hard to find somebody who knows what a linker does or why (I not flaming the level found on CP, but don't forget that you only see here the small percentage really passionate people). I know that not having to worry about all the details all the time makes you more productive and reduces the chances of error. But I also don't think that lack of knowledge is a quality. Plus it's not in our advantage either: it creates the perception that a well behaved and half trained monkey can do a developer's work. No, the monkey can only do a the work of a half trained and well behaved "developer", but the salary level still goes down. I couldn't agree more. Try to get an average developer to tell you the acceptable states for a DFA or how to remove left recursion from a production rule. Or even what unit test code is. But I hand it to anyone that comes to this site as being above normal. There are people I have met that swore they knew everything and never needed to read or research anything. I don't think developers are becoming less capable, I think the market is being flooded with people that think they can design and architect softw