| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
New J2EE vs .NET Performance Comparison Performed | |
|
||
| Time: 17:47 EST/22:47 GMT | News Source: The Server Side | Posted By: Chad Myers | ||
|
The Middleware Company has performed a new comparison of the performance and scalability of J2EE and .NET based on the familiar Pet Store application. This time, the Middleware Company has re-coded the J2EE Petstore and optimized the implementation for performance. Developed according to modern production EJB standards and following Sun's recommended design pattern for Web applications, the new implementation addresses many developers' complaints that the original Java Pet Store was not written for performance, and it incorporates suggestions and recommendations from many members of TheServerSide.com. In the comparison, a new implementation of the .NET Pet Shop has also been tested. This implementation uses dynamic SQL instead of stored procedures, and like the J2EE equivalent is an object-oriented, logical 3-tier implementation following Microsoft?s recommended design pattern for building scalable Web applications. <%=GetPoll(62)%> | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:34:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 10/28/2002 6:01:45 PM |
|
While there are several arguments for inconsistencies in this benchmark, none of them constitute a complete disqualification of the results. Any of the arguments might amount to, at the MOST, a doubling of J2EE's performance which still leaves it pretty far in the dust.
The only remaining arguments for Java are portability and vendor independence but that has never seemed to matter in the past, so I find it hard that Java can stay afloat with those rather luke warm arguments. Something must be done about the performance issues in Java. Great strides have been made recently I know, but they're just not good enough. |
| #2 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 6:42:05 PM |
| I thought Java was a cross platoform solution. |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 7:11:41 PM |
|
Sun makes a JVM for Windows. I understand that to mean they intend for Windows to be one of Java's target platforms.
beeyp, check out the benchmark report in this article for some J2EE vs. ASP.NET comparisons. As for client apps, I don't know of any benchmarks. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 7:24:02 PM |
| The reason I'm saying that, JWM, is that Sun claimed it is cross platform. Cross platform certainly must include Windows. Also, I've known companies to implement J2EE apps on Windows servers. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/28/2002 7:25:46 PM |
|
#7 - I know you probably know this JWM, but .NET is not a language.
C# was created by Anders, who has been with Microsoft for many, many years. The CLR did have team members that left Borland several years ago, which is what I assume you're talking about. Anyway, the idea behind Java was write once run *anywhere*, including Windows. There are better technologies native to each platform, but you choose Java when you need multiple platform support. The funny thing is, people use Java for server stuff now, which is almost always performance critical, and portability is not as much of a concern. That's why Java sucks server side... it wasn't designed to be there in the first place. They've hacked on cool stuff like EJB (well, cool in concept, slow in actuality) but it's still not suited for the job. .NET is good everywhere, but especially on the server, which is why it crushes Java. I wonder what all the people in the alt.comp.java.advocacy group are saying about this one! :-) |
| #6 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/28/2002 7:51:30 PM |
|
#11 - "I don't think MS wants people to run .NET on non-Windows platforms."
Hate to burst your bubble... but: 1.) Microsoft already ported .NET to BSD. It's called Rotor, and it's in beta 3. 2.) Microsoft has made C#, the CLR, the CLS, and most of the Framework both an ECMA and a ISO standard. This invites 3rd party implementations on different platforms. 3.) There are several independant .NET implementations on platforms other than Windows, including Mono, which runs on Linux. Microsoft has several factors motivating this seemingly counter-intutive action. First, it takes some heat off as far as government action goes. Second, they seen making it open as a good way to win back some people who have embraced the open software movement. And third, making it open will encourage .NET as a platform to spread, and if .NET is the defacto development platform, and Microsoft makes both the best OS and best tools for the job, then Microsoft will make lots of money. So, what you think, as usual, does not reflect reality. (Sorry, had to poke fun on this one. :-) |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 8:00:51 PM |
| JWM, Unix boxes are more expensive than Windows boxes. That is one reason for going with a Windows server over a Unix server. I'm sure it isn't too common a situation, but it does happen. |
| #8 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 8:08:52 PM |
| What does that have to do with what I said, beeyp? I never said anything about OS migrations. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/28/2002 8:42:06 PM |
|
I don't disagree with you, JWM. In fact two of the three companies that I've known to do that offered me jobs which I turned down. As it turns out they have both since gone out of business. I agree that if you are developing a project for internal use on Windows servers, you should develop it in COM or .NET.
If you are developing a server program, then it makes sense, perhaps, to write it in Java. For intance, if you were Oracle, it might make sense for you to write your product in Java (assuming you could get decent performance) so that you wouldn't have to maintain multiple codebases. In that situation, I'd probably write that app in standard C++ and avoid using native API calls to minimize the portability issues. Anyway, I fully agree "You can't go wrong sticking with Microsoft." |
| #10 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 10/28/2002 10:57:01 PM |
|
#20 - One reason you would go with Java instead of COM is development time. J2EE has lots of stuff that COM only plays lip service to, or that is fairly difficult to do in COM.
.NET on the other hand has it all, and then some. :-) #13 - "but I think in the end MS will make .NET to run much better on Windows" Well that's the thing. The only way they can do that is by writting better code. They can't hide anything, since it's an open standard that they no longer control. If their product is better, it's because they've innovated to make it better. Isn't that good for everybody? #14 - "What exactly is the status of Mono? I heard it was lagging behind and without enuf developers working on it." Actually, Mono is coming along at a surprising rate. I've been incredibly impressed with what they've gotten done. Microsoft invested BILLIONs into writing .NET, and the guys at Ximian (among others) have done a heroic job of duplicating the functionality. Here is the current status of Mono: C# Compiler - Self hosting on Linux, Self hosting on .NET. JIT - Linux/x86 working. Interpreter - Working: Linux/x86, Linux/PPC (In progress: StrongARM, SPARC.) Classes - All assemblies compile. For more info, go here: http://www.go-mono.org/ Mono may actually be the first successful large open source project in history! (I define successful as on time, on budget (aka $0), and high quality. |
| #11 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 10/28/2002 11:19:35 PM |
|
JWM - "Do that many people actually use Java on a Windows Server? Simplicity stated, I though Java was for Unix and .NET was for Windows. "
From Page 15: "On the J2EE side, the Middleware Company performed tests using two leading J2EE application servers, identified in this report as J2EE Application Server A and J2EE Application Server B. License restrictions prevent the Middleware Company from disclosing the names..." ok then later on... "Both application servers were tested on both RedHat Linux 7.2 and on Windows 2000 Advanced Server(SP2). Middleware performed a comparison of each on both operating systems, and used the operating system that provided the best performance with that application server for the final, published test runs. For J2EE Application Server A, Windows 2000 was chosen since the application server performed noticeably better on Windows 2000 than Linux 7.2. For J2EE Application Server B, both Windows 2000 and Linux 7.2 provided comparable performance, but Windows 2000 was again chosen primarily because it was easier to monitor the performance characteristics of the computer under load without effecting performance by using the built-in Windows 2000 Performance Monitor. Precise configuration optimizations...are documented in Appendices 5-6." So they tested it on Linux at least, and performance was either worse or at best no better. Of course in the case of App Server B, being no better meant little as it's performance positively sucked. This is a tremendous win not only for .Net but for Windows 2000 servers over Linux. WOW! Good news for the day, I wasn't expecting this. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/29/2002 8:21:33 AM |
| jirk sounds just like you though. |
| #13 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 10/29/2002 8:31:45 AM |
| lol, a troll is annoying enough. a wannabe troll? ROFLMAO! |
| #14 By 5444 (208.180.130.104) at 10/29/2002 10:42:25 AM |
|
What,
Java is write once run everywhere. ROFLMAO. try write once Debug Everywhere. And that is even worse in the J2EE enviroment. Write it for the IBM J2ee Enviroment and Watch what extension you write or it won't run on the Sun Flavor. (hmm wasn't that why MS was sued by Sun?? because of its extensions that got rid of the write once run everywhere) In Java that has been a myth, especially if you want any chance of performance. El |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:34:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
