Re: What is the benefit to me of .NET as an end-user?

Actually I don't even think that the disk requirement is that bad thing. I
find the performance hit to be much worse. As an end user of Visual C++
for
exaple I find the delays that occur in 2005 hardly bearable (1GB RAM,
3GHz).
We even created a new term for it - the infamous WHITE SCREEN.

If you're talking about the IDE, perhaps there are issues. But with the
actual application produced, I have not noticed any problems with
performance. Granted, I'm not doing heavy numerical crunching or something
that would normally be done in C++ anyway due to extreme performance
concerns. I do, however, write software for insurance company's (C#,
VB.NET, ASP.NET) and we get well over 5 million transactions a day between
all our customers (from the user directly). Of course, we have data centers
and proper load-balancing and clustering and such... but we are not even
operating at 60% of peak. We have had "hickups" using .NET, but nothing
that proper "architecture" hasn't cured. This is just the application side
of our product, on the WebService side and other services that process our
Message Queues and do Batch printing and other types of heavy financial
cruching (I'm responsible for the accounting module), we'll process tens of
millions of transactions (without user intervention) and gigs of XML files
that equate information to be acted upon in some way without even breaking a
sweat.

..NET as a platform has my full trust. The IDE's, I agree, can be really
crappy. But that doesn't mean what they produce is equally as crappy.

I think we have finally arrived at a point where Windows app feel as
"snappy" as Java apps. No difference anymore.


I'd like to respectfully dissagree. My experiences with the .NET IDE's may
be as "snappy" as Esclipse and JBuilder at times, but what they produce, is
of exceptional performance and quality (provided the applications where
designed an implemented soundly). I've never done video codecs or numerical
processing so I can't comment on those uses. I am responsible for an
accounting system that calculates billions on the ledger and year-end
financial data without even breaking a sweat.

Actually having never observed a .NET app in action, this is a very
interesting thing to know. Yet another strike against it.

I don't see any strikes. I've witnessed many Java and .NET applications in
action and I'd say both can perform well and both can suck. My direct
experience with .NET (having worked with it exclusively for the past 5
years) has been nothing less than exhilerating. Sure, C++ can do better,
but when we process over 5 million user transaction per day and over 20
million a day on the back-end services brokers without even breaking a
sweat, very little problems, reliable up-time and so on, I can hardly have
any complaints.

I knew people cast performance considerations out the window long ago
(pioneered by Microsoft) to force obsolescence in the computer
hardware market as well, but MAN!

I mentioned the disk requirement for having to go to the trouble to
download that much, which is necessary for Windows ME, and even XP
(Vista is the first Windows that will have it installed with the OS).

I agree. This is a problem but it isn't going to get any better, not on the
*nix or *dows platforms.

And nevermind if we're talking about 1.1 or 2.0 apps - if I have to
run both, with patches, this download requirement goes up to 80MB. Do
I want to put the user to the trouble of doing that? And what of
those on dial-up? I hate it when programs make Internet-tethers for

Well, the way I see it, sooner or later they will need to download or
install the runtime anyway. Whether for your application or some other. If
they encounter something that requires it than they only choice they have is
to download/install the runtimes or avoid the application. Hopefully, they
will already have it because of some other reason. If they don't, then you
are doing them a favor, IMO.

For those using Dialup, it's a problem indeed. But oh well. The times are
changing, perhaps they should, too.

themselves. I hate it even more when there's huge barriers for entry
in place for a piece of software.

Agreed.

Then again I don't get it either - this has been a pattern of the last
10 years for Microsoft to convince people to do things that are not of
their benefit with their own computers ("Product Activation" being the
latest example).

I'm certainly a Microsoft fanboy. I make a six-figure income working with
their tools developing for their platform. My wife does, too. They have
good technology. It is a joy to work with and the .NET platform is a joy to
work with (most of the time). I will agree, they have this sick compulsion
to have their hands in everything. In many cases, it takes the fun out it.
I'd like to be creative, too, you know; as do others. But they indeed do
many things that are not in the best interest of others. But then, in the
long run, it could very well turn out to be a very good thing.

Ditching VB6 in favor of VB.NET, IMO, wasn't an evil crime that many made it
out to be. I was one of those VB.NET'ers that updated his skills to be
cutting edge. Of course, I've since migrated to C#... but... what was evil
was to just ditch COM in favor of .NET overnight. Although, .NET is the
perfection of their dream for what COM was meant to be and is a natural step
forward, although completely incompatible. Some call it evil, I call it
"progress". The impression I get, after them abandoning GDI for GDI+
(promised to be hardeware accelerated but only software implemented in th
end) then dropping it for Avalon (WPF), then spending more effort on smart
clients than ASP.NET after ASP.NET was harolded to be the savior of our
problems, among other things, leads me to believe they'll change their mind
with or without our concent and that is what scares me. It's hard to trust
them, but in the meantime, what do I really care? I'm on top of things,
change when they do, and find constant employment implementing the
technologies people pay me to do, which is often the most cutting-edge of
the month thing.

Product Activation really sucks. I hate it with a passion. For more
reasons than I care to list on this thread. I pay for my software and hate
Activation all the more because of that. I'm not a thief. But it's life.
Maya, SoftImage, Rational products, Adobe, they all do it. It's a glimpse
of the future. I tend to avoid using software that treats me that way when
there's an option. With MS, I don't have the option, not if I want to
continue being useful to my employers, since I do more learning at home than
at work. With Adobe, there isn't a suitable competitor that I'm happy with.
But with most others, I can do without or there is a suitable competitor
that does not treat me like a thief. I spend less money on software these
days and more money on my realestate and gold investments. I'm almost to
the point where I don't need to work to earn the same income that I get paid
full time. I will take advantage of that when the time comes. But MS
helped me get there, despite all of its evils.


Thanks,
Shawn


.

Relevant Pages