| 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 |
 |
Microsoft .Net software's hidden cost | |
|
||
| Time: 17:45 EST/22:45 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
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. 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. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 153 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:53:15 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7650 (207.18.199.196) at 6/21/2002 6:01:56 PM |
| Bah, .NET is so much easier to write for than previous Win32 programming techniques and a lot more simplified. Windows Forms can be designed by people who have no clue what they're doing!! That fact alone would save a company tons in costs for future development. UI is as easy as drag and drop pretty much with VS.NET. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 6/21/2002 6:40:59 PM |
|
Gartner is talking about porting of existing applications. I don't think anybody is surprised when they say that's going to cost money.
|
| #3 By 2332 (165.247.2.186) at 6/21/2002 7:09:52 PM |
|
It's been my experience that developing large scale .NET applications from scratch takes about 1/4 of the time it took using C++/COM/ATL... and about 1/3 of the time it took using VB/COM.
I can't see how it would be *more* expensive if it takes 1/3 or 1/4 the time to develop. Granted, developers need to know how to write apps in .NET, but that's not nearly as big a deal as one might think. Personally, it took me about a month to become really comfortable developing .NET apps moving from a primarly VB background. People moving from C++ or Java should catch on much more quickly. At any rate, the CNet abstract is very confusing... |
| #4 By 7650 (24.28.118.89) at 6/21/2002 7:22:27 PM |
| Yes, indeed, there are WAY too many meanings for the same moniker ".NET" :). |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.51.87) at 6/22/2002 1:22:45 AM |
|
Yes, both ZDnet and Gartner are horribly confused, which is fitting since Gartner just puts out "studies" that marketing and executives request to give them warm stiffies.
They are hopelessly confused, but here is the truth. Porting apps to .NET will be easy since most of the work is done in the framework for you. However, the "hidden cost", if any, is that you will actually have to design and architect your software soundly, rather than hacking it together in the ASP/VB/COM and C++ days. |
| #6 By 2332 (165.247.12.227) at 6/22/2002 3:50:56 AM |
|
#11 - "However, the "hidden cost", if any, is that you will actually have to design and architect your software soundly, rather than hacking it together in the ASP/VB/COM and C++ days."
VB, perhaps... but most apps written in C++/ATL/COM are pretty sound. People who have enough know-how to create those apps in the first place typically know how to create them correctly. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 153 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:53:15 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
