Microsoft is under no obligation to ensure upgrade compatibility from one version to another no more than any OSS software is if security would be a problem.
This isn't business 101 in the traditional sense when any other comparison is applied.
If a person has a car that has a malfunction occuring due to the owners negligence or knowledge, a manufacturer and dealer are not responsible if problems occur with other repairs.
This is similar. A user has unknowlingly installed software onto their system and now Microsoft's software doesn't work with it. It sounds like a more "Business 101" answer would be that the user should call the company that wrote the spyware and get them to help.
Disliking Microsoft's approach to the OS is irrelevant, as it's an island as is a car or any other finished product that can be altered after the fact.
Using your analogy, let's say spyware gets installed on a Linuxuser's machine. Maybe not this year, but say in a few years when we get average, normal users (not slashdot readers) using a regular Linux box. An average user can screw a lot of things up.
It's RedHat/Dell/HP/Whoever's responsibility to fix and maintain upgrade paths until the spyware is removed?
Saying that Microsoft "got themselves into this position in the first place" is even more complicated is OSS.
Wow, a pointy head who know how to type... sheesh guy, get real, most executives are incompetent jerks who don't deserve the pay they get or respect they expect. Most of them got rich by ripping of others. This story is just so typical of upper management.
Wow, yet another "Everyone who is management sucks" type. It would seem that most people who fit into your views are young, unhappy with their jobs, and believe they are smarter than everyone else. You clearly have a superiority complex, and I'm sure you will do well in life.
This is the same uninformed response the courts must have had. Obviously, you are not well versed in modern day game systems and mod-chips.
I'm not sure about the PS2, as I haven't modded mine, but at least on the xbox, I rarely even run games anymore. Linux and a variety of other software are available as homebrew (some legally compiled and some not), so I fail to see your logic as valid.
Why should I and the authors of those software packages not be able to use the xbox for that reason? This isn't stretching the truth - I do this every day as many other people do.
I own the box - NOT Sony or Microsoft. I shoudl be able to do any damned thing I wish to it, including smashing it with a sledgehammer (hardware mod), adding another hard drive to it, replacing the DVD, or running my own software. You cannot convince me that I do not have that right since I own the box, no matter what can be done legally or illegally with it after the fact.
Take the BMW M3 for instance, practically an icon among BMW fanboys. The Volvo S60R beats it by miles in pretty much every department (ok, it might me.1 seconds slower going to 100kph) at more than $10k less. And the service costs much less... Having a BMW automatically means replacing something simple like a windshield wiper will set you back $50 ($100?). Volvo still has humane prices on most of their spare parts.
This is pure poo poo. I had a 2001 330ci that I just sold and the car, including wipers, has free maintenance. That means that you have basically zero costs (oil changes included) for at least 4 - 5 years. The M3 has the same deal, so the cost of owning the car is essentially ZERO for the first several years. After that, if you don't sell it, get it maintained at a specialist. Any enthusiast will tell you the same thing.
Also, saying the S60R beats the M3 in every department is also not true. On a track, the M3 will eat the S60R - there's more to a car than just stats and how fast you can get to 60mph.
Now I'm not saying the S60R sucks, but just like you can't use stats, you can't just use price either. Passion can't be measured so easily, unfortunately.
You must be kiddding yourself right now if you truly believe that there are more than 1% of all websites in the world not designed with IE in mind first. Again, I'll stress this, FEATURES DO NOT WIN.
If your response is to say what about features like PNG and CSS2, etc, forget that - the average person has never heard of PNG or CSS.
The problem that I see is that most technical individuals automatically think of why THEY don't use IE and think that will be the reason everyone else would. You're dealing with people who are not technical and would not understand those reasons, so your BENEFIT has to be pretty great (to overcome the hurdle of installing a 3rd party product).
This is true for ANY OS that a person gets by default. The majority of people will use the most accessible browser they can find installed on their machine and it's unfeasible to think that every single browser in the world will be installed by default on their desktop as well (thanks, but no thanks).
It has to be a) easy as hell and b) obviously a need. Unfortunately, the first requirement makes it somewhat a security concern, and the second has nothing to do with goofy technical crap like tabs, gestures, "more security", and CSS.
I think the browser wars are more for technical individuals than anything else. They create choice, which is why they're great - and yes, I have Firefox installed and think it's a great browser... it's just not my main one.
And this matters to the average person in what way? Sorry if this seems argumentative, but the reality is people do not concern themselves with it because they don't even know to be.
My point was that features don't win. You came back and said security wins, which is even more obscure.
Oh, I love those features, like you can use in My IE2?
I use it at work and it provides all those features and is 100% compatible with all websites and runs IE underneath.
My main point is that features don't win a war, and calling users "smallwited" (as the parent's reply was to) certainly doesn't help any cause. What everyone seems to forget is that most people don't really care or don't want to bother to learn. It's just not their bag of chips, people... you all probably work in technology (as do I), but most people struggle to turn a computer on (My mom still calls the monitor the computer and calls IM messages "email").
So why would I want something not IE, again? Because of whiz-bang tabs, mouse gestures, and it's OSS?
What upsets me most is the people who say bundled software is bad. I agree with the above post... integration isn't necessarily bad.
Bundled/integrated software isn't bad.
I *LIKE* the browser being built into the OS. Why wouldn't it be? Because it wasn't before?
I *LIKE* virtual memory being part of the OS. Why wouldn't it be? So Connectix can sell more software?
Why shouldn't zip support be part of WinXP? So I have to hope that my parents have zip installed on their machine if I send them a file?
Why should Microsoft be able to provide a GUI and a command line. GUIs were separate products a long time ago. Bastards.
Hey, I use WinXP, but I still use WinAmp. It was my choice - I don't like WMP. I didn't need the damned government to make that decision for me.
Is it better to have EVERYTHING there? Oh that's great. I love it when I install a piece of software and 500 other things I didn't want also get installed. I hate it when one day I find a AOL with 500 Hours free icon sitting someplace.
Sorry if you don't agree, but I don't find the alternative better. I find it very annoying and it looks like a crap menu.
Let Microsoft keep integrating, because sometimes I like it. If you don't... use something else.
"but they're a monopoly and we need..." - blah. Go direct your whining to the brick wall in the corner or else go write something better. There's so much great open source software out there, but people don't know what they are. For all the effort people on this board use in whining, it would be much better suited to pushing product.
One last thing - I like IE more than Mozilla. Sorry.
Why, yes, it does and can (cryptostore). Thank you for researching before spreading more crap that you think you understand first.
The common problem that most people (yourself included, it look like) confuse the bundled software problems (IE, etc.) with core OS problems. There haven't been many file system changes to NTFS for security.
There are lots of companies that are not market leaders that don't make crap products. If Real can only make good product by being a market leader, then they deserve to whither away. The government is not here to protect every company who makes a product and at one time was an early innovator.
Microsoft should be able to bundle products into their OS - especially something like a media player, which is a FREE piece of software in most cases (there are hundreds of them). Perhaps they should rip notepad out? Perhaps Apple should not ship iTunes? Perhaps Microsoft shouldn't ship the scientific calculator software because Texas Instruments makes calculators too. Perhaps GM should not ship radios in their cars because most people don't want to go through the trouble of upgrading to aftermarket.
I anticipate plenty of "yeah, but...." responses explaining monopoly etc. Windows XP already lets you configure alternate media players at the OEM. Fair enough, move on folks.
Almost none of the posts that have been modded up point out the good side of what this can do for kids. It's really disappointing that the mods and most posters care only to crack jokes, shoot puns, and criticize this action. If I were a parent with a kid who could go to this school, I'll bet I'd feel pretty lucky. And I sure as shit wouldn't care if the entire school had Microsoft crap everywhere or Linux - hell, most parents probably don't have any exposure to this. Cry all you want that that's the problem, but you're missing the point. This does help - maybe not your agenda, but it's a selfish one in this case.
What about the good for this? Does anyone here even have kids? Does anyone here have exposure to schools that don't have enough funding, where education is lacking? It reads mo0re like people here don't have a clue in reality beyond their own political interests and paranoid agendas. Sad indeed.
Sadly, I fear that there are other people like yourself who are so paranoid, looking for a cause, that you don't even know how silly you sound. For you to suggest that this is worse or equal to Hitler - wow, you have some things that are out of whack.
The reality is that many companies (Apple, Coke, Pepsi, etc) have been doing this practice for many years. Does it surprise you that MSFT would only suggest their solutions? Of course not - is Pepsi going to put Coke vending machines in? No.
You're right that MSFT has their own agenda, but if it helps those less fortunate than you and many others on this board, how dare you judge that? Many of these kids don't get the ability to even know what Red Hat is, much less learn about other things. And don't round me out as a zealot or say I'm overdoing it - you live in a different world if you don't know what goes on.
Go ahead and protest for your selfish reasons and paranoid causes. After all, you already have a computer sitting at your house (maybe several), and you hate MSFT. I'm sure those kids will appreciate your protest.
When you learn how to read an annual report, come back and post numbers from it.
Short term investments are liquid investments...
Here's how "Short Term Investments" are determined: The Company considers all liquid interest-earning investments with a maturity of three months or less at the date of purchase to be cash equivalents.
What does this mean - the KEY here being INTEREST-EARNING. Do you think MSFT keeps 40 - 50B in a bank or in investments?
While you're wondering about.Net, you should instead take some time to understand architecture, design, and the technologies you're looking at. Don't even worry about the platform just yet:P
"Ok, I've heard from different people as to whether or not.NET scales well and I've been working with it for the last 7 months. So far from what I can tell it's very tough to scale for a couple of different reasons." - Any platform has scale problems if designed incorrectly. Often, it's not the platform that matters, but the person designing and implementing.
"currently there isn't a mature messaging server and MSMQ is not appropriate for high load messaging platform." - I'm interested in how MSMQ won't meet the need you've stated. 100+ concurrent isn't very much and you can actually scale MSMQ out against multiple machines if need be. I'm curious as to what high load means... pulling data from queues is pretty standard in high volume. Are you instead using it as some sort of strange cache for transient data?
"SOAP is too damn heavy weight to scale well beyond 60 concurrent requests for a single CPU 3ghz system." - SOAP being heavy is not a.Net limitation, but again, how HEAVY your data is factors in a lot here. Doing a good design, I see no reason why you couldn't have this on a single proc system.
"SQL Server doesn't support C# triggers or a way to embed C# applications within the database " - This is coming in Yukon, but why would this be a limitation? I've never had a client come to me stating they want to use Java Stored Procs or C# in the database. Take advantage of the procedural nature of the DB for performance.
"The through put of SQL Server is still around 200 concurrent requests for a single or dual CPU box. I've read the posts about Transaction Processing Council, but get real, who can afford to spend 6 million on a 64 CPU box? the clients we target are small-ish, so they can't spend more than 30-50K on a server. so where does that leave you in terms of scalability I've been been running benchmarks with dynamic code that does quite a bit of reflection and the performance doesn't impress me." - No offense, but you're obviously not a SQL/DB person. Dynamic code is the not the best performance and if you're looking for scale, you need to understand the way to scale on each tier.
From all your comments, you seem to confuse product limitation with bad design or poor programming. You can cram a HUGE amount of requests to SQL server, but what are you sending? Can it be trimmed down? Have you looked at query plans? Have you looked at the disk configuration? Is the disk your bottleneck? Memory? Processor?
"I've also compared the performance of a static ASP/HTML page to webservice page and the throughput goes from 150-200 to about 10-20 on a 2.4-2.6Ghz system to get good through put with SQL Server you have to use async calls, but what if you have to do sync calls?" - This shouldn't even be a comparison. What classes are you using for DB access? Are you using fat datasets or readers? All your examples make me think you know very little about the technology. What are you passing back to the client in the webmethods? Why are you forced to do async calls and why would the performance of the SQL code have ANYTHING to do with this?
"From what I've seen the performance isn't great (it's ok) and I don't like the idea of setting up partitions. Sure, you can put mirrored raid on all the DB servers, but that doesn't help me if a partition goes down and the data is no longer available. I asked a MS SQL Server DBA about real-time replication across multiple servers and his remark was "it doesn't work, don't use it."" - No offense, but if these are the answers you're making decisions on, you're not ready to be a consultant imo. First off, proper disk config on a database is ESSENTIAL since disk is just another bottleneck. Have you even looked at filegr
I'll have the finance guys get right on that, because that's what most people in companies do. They sit around, pop open the source code for software, and start analyzing to assess risk when they hear of a bug. This is good for a small portion of the population, but in companies?
Most companies lock their machines down - users can't install software on them and also don't upgrade the software on boxes for every single update. Why? Standardization and time. When you have 20 employees this is no big deal, but when you have a couple thousand, it's an even bigger deal. It's not realistic to say that people just pop open the source and try to fix it when they are an employee. Even if you work in the IT group, do you really think it's feasible that a company will diverge from a supported path because of a assessment in their IT group?
You need to be realistic about the benefits of that. The benefits are extended to smaller shops, individuals, and the hobbyists, but not to any decent-sized company. The cost is too high...
Then your friend is full of complete and TOTAL crap. Having worked at MSFT for quite some time with about 20 different groups, your friend is just telling you BS. The poster wan't referring to OO in the sense you're referring to, but the component model that MSFT uses (.dll). Almost all MSFT apps share components between each other so your statement is completely not true.
What's sad is that people reading your post will take it as the truth and go post the same elsewhere to distribute more FUD crap.
Again, another BSOD reference... it gets tiring after a while.
The other way to look at it is that people want to buy the boxes with the software on it and thusly the manufacturers put it there, regardless of contracts. If people don't want something then manufacturers wouldn't put it on the machine as it wouldn't sell.
If you buy a Macintosh you get MacOS. It's not like LinuxPPC comes bundled on the Macs you buy. And there are choices for the PPC platform other than MacOS.
And you can buy a different OS at WalMart and Best Buy. If a consumer doesn't want the OS that came on the machine they have the freedom to get another. I would say could be looked at as a deman issue, not an illegal monopoly issue.
If you don't like closed products don't use them. But it's INSANE to say a whole company should be FORCED to support a controlled standard and not be able to innovate beyond that.
I don't care if this is M$ or not. Maybe IEEE or ACM should make a standard for 3D games and then that way all people who write games will have the nice same engine. And then maybe come up with something that describes how all cars should be the same standard shape so everyone can use the same assembly line.
It's fair right?
Why should only one benefit when everyone deserves a shot?
That's bullcrap - you beat somebody by doing better than they do. Instead of whining, go build a better platform. Linux may be a better server product but it SUCKS for consumers. My Dad wouldn't even be able to load it on his machine, much less use it when it got there.
My problem is that people want to close innovation instead of innovating to beat what they don't like. I think standardizations on OS and apps is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.
I like diversity - you may not, but you don't have to use diverse products if you don't want. And again, this has nothing to do with M$ - I wouldn't feel good about ANY standard that a company is FORCED to follow for ANY market vertical.
Come on, if anything it should be +5 Funny. Nothing listed above is illegal, and even worse, the person clearly is only using example he/she has read here.
Machines you have to reboot every day? This is getting old - my damned Win2k machines never reboot and I'm writing this post on a machine that has rebooted for months. But of course the author who got a +5 Interesting wouldn't know, because they don't even run MS products.
Nice... that's like having someone who drives a Jeep Wrangler talk about how reliable a Defender 90 is.
What the typical Slashdot FUD believer doesn't ever get it seems, is that just as M$ spreads FUD about Linux, it goes the other way. Many people I know run M$ products without problem, without getting a virus, etc.
The ILOVEYOU virus happened because of flaws and security holes. Is Linux any better? Is Apache any better? It seems so, but only when it happens to a M$ product.
The Slashdot crowd, and this person in particular, also fails to see that a monopoly itself IS NOT ILLEGAL. If people were so unhappy with M$ products all this time they would switch and be running MacOS or BeOS now wouldn't they?
Slashdot Mirror
You just went from point A to point Venus.
Microsoft is under no obligation to ensure upgrade compatibility from one version to another no more than any OSS software is if security would be a problem.
This isn't business 101 in the traditional sense when any other comparison is applied.
If a person has a car that has a malfunction occuring due to the owners negligence or knowledge, a manufacturer and dealer are not responsible if problems occur with other repairs.
This is similar. A user has unknowlingly installed software onto their system and now Microsoft's software doesn't work with it. It sounds like a more "Business 101" answer would be that the user should call the company that wrote the spyware and get them to help.
Disliking Microsoft's approach to the OS is irrelevant, as it's an island as is a car or any other finished product that can be altered after the fact.
So let me see if I have this straight.
Using your analogy, let's say spyware gets installed on a Linuxuser's machine. Maybe not this year, but say in a few years when we get average, normal users (not slashdot readers) using a regular Linux box. An average user can screw a lot of things up.
It's RedHat/Dell/HP/Whoever's responsibility to fix and maintain upgrade paths until the spyware is removed?
Saying that Microsoft "got themselves into this position in the first place" is even more complicated is OSS.
Interesting, because my guess is that the dealership would have uncovered the problem and said they can't fix it under warranty.
Wow, yet another "Everyone who is management sucks" type. It would seem that most people who fit into your views are young, unhappy with their jobs, and believe they are smarter than everyone else. You clearly have a superiority complex, and I'm sure you will do well in life.
This is the same uninformed response the courts must have had. Obviously, you are not well versed in modern day game systems and mod-chips.
I'm not sure about the PS2, as I haven't modded mine, but at least on the xbox, I rarely even run games anymore. Linux and a variety of other software are available as homebrew (some legally compiled and some not), so I fail to see your logic as valid.
Why should I and the authors of those software packages not be able to use the xbox for that reason? This isn't stretching the truth - I do this every day as many other people do.
I own the box - NOT Sony or Microsoft. I shoudl be able to do any damned thing I wish to it, including smashing it with a sledgehammer (hardware mod), adding another hard drive to it, replacing the DVD, or running my own software. You cannot convince me that I do not have that right since I own the box, no matter what can be done legally or illegally with it after the fact.
I have a Tivo and set up just fine over VOIP. The story seems to be a bunch of fear, but no real substance.
Oh, and I ordered a pizza yesterday just fine from it.
This is pure poo poo. I had a 2001 330ci that I just sold and the car, including wipers, has free maintenance. That means that you have basically zero costs (oil changes included) for at least 4 - 5 years. The M3 has the same deal, so the cost of owning the car is essentially ZERO for the first several years. After that, if you don't sell it, get it maintained at a specialist. Any enthusiast will tell you the same thing.
Also, saying the S60R beats the M3 in every department is also not true. On a track, the M3 will eat the S60R - there's more to a car than just stats and how fast you can get to 60mph.
Now I'm not saying the S60R sucks, but just like you can't use stats, you can't just use price either. Passion can't be measured so easily, unfortunately.
You must be kiddding yourself right now if you truly believe that there are more than 1% of all websites in the world not designed with IE in mind first. Again, I'll stress this, FEATURES DO NOT WIN.
:)
If your response is to say what about features like PNG and CSS2, etc, forget that - the average person has never heard of PNG or CSS.
The problem that I see is that most technical individuals automatically think of why THEY don't use IE and think that will be the reason everyone else would. You're dealing with people who are not technical and would not understand those reasons, so your BENEFIT has to be pretty great (to overcome the hurdle of installing a 3rd party product).
This is true for ANY OS that a person gets by default. The majority of people will use the most accessible browser they can find installed on their machine and it's unfeasible to think that every single browser in the world will be installed by default on their desktop as well (thanks, but no thanks).
It has to be a) easy as hell and b) obviously a need. Unfortunately, the first requirement makes it somewhat a security concern, and the second has nothing to do with goofy technical crap like tabs, gestures, "more security", and CSS.
I think the browser wars are more for technical individuals than anything else. They create choice, which is why they're great - and yes, I have Firefox installed and think it's a great browser... it's just not my main one.
Is that so bad?
And this matters to the average person in what way? Sorry if this seems argumentative, but the reality is people do not concern themselves with it because they don't even know to be.
My point was that features don't win. You came back and said security wins, which is even more obscure.
I use it at work and it provides all those features and is 100% compatible with all websites and runs IE underneath.
My main point is that features don't win a war, and calling users "smallwited" (as the parent's reply was to) certainly doesn't help any cause. What everyone seems to forget is that most people don't really care or don't want to bother to learn. It's just not their bag of chips, people... you all probably work in technology (as do I), but most people struggle to turn a computer on (My mom still calls the monitor the computer and calls IM messages "email").
So why would I want something not IE, again? Because of whiz-bang tabs, mouse gestures, and it's OSS?
*blank stare*
Why is it bad if a company tries to make money?
If you don't like the damned free service, use another!
What upsets me most is the people who say bundled software is bad. I agree with the above post... integration isn't necessarily bad.
Bundled/integrated software isn't bad.
I *LIKE* the browser being built into the OS. Why wouldn't it be? Because it wasn't before?
I *LIKE* virtual memory being part of the OS. Why wouldn't it be? So Connectix can sell more software?
Why shouldn't zip support be part of WinXP? So I have to hope that my parents have zip installed on their machine if I send them a file?
Why should Microsoft be able to provide a GUI and a command line. GUIs were separate products a long time ago. Bastards.
Hey, I use WinXP, but I still use WinAmp. It was my choice - I don't like WMP. I didn't need the damned government to make that decision for me.
Is it better to have EVERYTHING there? Oh that's great. I love it when I install a piece of software and 500 other things I didn't want also get installed. I hate it when one day I find a AOL with 500 Hours free icon sitting someplace.
Sorry if you don't agree, but I don't find the alternative better. I find it very annoying and it looks like a crap menu.
Let Microsoft keep integrating, because sometimes I like it. If you don't... use something else.
"but they're a monopoly and we need..." - blah. Go direct your whining to the brick wall in the corner or else go write something better. There's so much great open source software out there, but people don't know what they are. For all the effort people on this board use in whining, it would be much better suited to pushing product.
One last thing - I like IE more than Mozilla. Sorry.
Why, yes, it does and can (cryptostore). Thank you for researching before spreading more crap that you think you understand first.
The common problem that most people (yourself included, it look like) confuse the bundled software problems (IE, etc.) with core OS problems. There haven't been many file system changes to NTFS for security.
With news like this, I no longer need to watch the grass grow.
There are lots of companies that are not market leaders that don't make crap products. If Real can only make good product by being a market leader, then they deserve to whither away. The government is not here to protect every company who makes a product and at one time was an early innovator.
Microsoft should be able to bundle products into their OS - especially something like a media player, which is a FREE piece of software in most cases (there are hundreds of them). Perhaps they should rip notepad out? Perhaps Apple should not ship iTunes? Perhaps Microsoft shouldn't ship the scientific calculator software because Texas Instruments makes calculators too. Perhaps GM should not ship radios in their cars because most people don't want to go through the trouble of upgrading to aftermarket.
I anticipate plenty of "yeah, but...." responses explaining monopoly etc. Windows XP already lets you configure alternate media players at the OEM. Fair enough, move on folks.
"Yeah, but..." Whatever.
Almost none of the posts that have been modded up point out the good side of what this can do for kids. It's really disappointing that the mods and most posters care only to crack jokes, shoot puns, and criticize this action. If I were a parent with a kid who could go to this school, I'll bet I'd feel pretty lucky. And I sure as shit wouldn't care if the entire school had Microsoft crap everywhere or Linux - hell, most parents probably don't have any exposure to this. Cry all you want that that's the problem, but you're missing the point. This does help - maybe not your agenda, but it's a selfish one in this case.
What about the good for this? Does anyone here even have kids? Does anyone here have exposure to schools that don't have enough funding, where education is lacking? It reads mo0re like people here don't have a clue in reality beyond their own political interests and paranoid agendas. Sad indeed.
Sadly, I fear that there are other people like yourself who are so paranoid, looking for a cause, that you don't even know how silly you sound. For you to suggest that this is worse or equal to Hitler - wow, you have some things that are out of whack.
The reality is that many companies (Apple, Coke, Pepsi, etc) have been doing this practice for many years. Does it surprise you that MSFT would only suggest their solutions? Of course not - is Pepsi going to put Coke vending machines in? No.
You're right that MSFT has their own agenda, but if it helps those less fortunate than you and many others on this board, how dare you judge that? Many of these kids don't get the ability to even know what Red Hat is, much less learn about other things. And don't round me out as a zealot or say I'm overdoing it - you live in a different world if you don't know what goes on.
Go ahead and protest for your selfish reasons and paranoid causes. After all, you already have a computer sitting at your house (maybe several), and you hate MSFT. I'm sure those kids will appreciate your protest.
When you learn how to read an annual report, come back and post numbers from it.
Short term investments are liquid investments...
Here's how "Short Term Investments" are determined:
The Company considers all liquid interest-earning investments with a maturity of three months or less at the date of purchase to be cash equivalents.
What does this mean - the KEY here being INTEREST-EARNING. Do you think MSFT keeps 40 - 50B in a bank or in investments?
While you're wondering about .Net, you should instead take some time to understand architecture, design, and the technologies you're looking at. Don't even worry about the platform just yet :P
.NET scales well and I've been working with it for the last 7 months. So far from what I can tell it's very tough to scale for a couple of different reasons."
.Net limitation, but again, how HEAVY your data is factors in a lot here. Doing a good design, I see no reason why you couldn't have this on a single proc system.
"Ok, I've heard from different people as to whether or not
- Any platform has scale problems if designed incorrectly. Often, it's not the platform that matters, but the person designing and implementing.
"currently there isn't a mature messaging server and MSMQ is not appropriate for high load messaging platform."
- I'm interested in how MSMQ won't meet the need you've stated. 100+ concurrent isn't very much and you can actually scale MSMQ out against multiple machines if need be. I'm curious as to what high load means... pulling data from queues is pretty standard in high volume. Are you instead using it as some sort of strange cache for transient data?
"SOAP is too damn heavy weight to scale well beyond 60 concurrent requests for a single CPU 3ghz system."
- SOAP being heavy is not a
"SQL Server doesn't support C# triggers or a way to embed C# applications within the database "
- This is coming in Yukon, but why would this be a limitation? I've never had a client come to me stating they want to use Java Stored Procs or C# in the database. Take advantage of the procedural nature of the DB for performance.
"The through put of SQL Server is still around 200 concurrent requests for a single or dual CPU box. I've read the posts about Transaction Processing Council, but get real, who can afford to spend 6 million on a 64 CPU box?
the clients we target are small-ish, so they can't spend more than 30-50K on a server. so where does that leave you in terms of scalability
I've been been running benchmarks with dynamic code that does quite a bit of reflection and the performance doesn't impress me."
- No offense, but you're obviously not a SQL/DB person. Dynamic code is the not the best performance and if you're looking for scale, you need to understand the way to scale on each tier.
From all your comments, you seem to confuse product limitation with bad design or poor programming. You can cram a HUGE amount of requests to SQL server, but what are you sending? Can it be trimmed down? Have you looked at query plans? Have you looked at the disk configuration? Is the disk your bottleneck? Memory? Processor?
"I've also compared the performance of a static ASP/HTML page to webservice page and the throughput goes from 150-200 to about 10-20 on a 2.4-2.6Ghz system
to get good through put with SQL Server you have to use async calls, but what if you have to do sync calls?"
- This shouldn't even be a comparison. What classes are you using for DB access? Are you using fat datasets or readers? All your examples make me think you know very little about the technology. What are you passing back to the client in the webmethods? Why are you forced to do async calls and why would the performance of the SQL code have ANYTHING to do with this?
"From what I've seen the performance isn't great (it's ok) and I don't like the idea of setting up partitions. Sure, you can put mirrored raid on all the DB servers, but that doesn't help me if a partition goes down and the data is no longer available.
I asked a MS SQL Server DBA about real-time replication across multiple servers and his remark was "it doesn't work, don't use it.""
- No offense, but if these are the answers you're making decisions on, you're not ready to be a consultant imo. First off, proper disk config on a database is ESSENTIAL since disk is just another bottleneck. Have you even looked at filegr
I'll have the finance guys get right on that, because that's what most people in companies do. They sit around, pop open the source code for software, and start analyzing to assess risk when they hear of a bug. This is good for a small portion of the population, but in companies?
Most companies lock their machines down - users can't install software on them and also don't upgrade the software on boxes for every single update. Why? Standardization and time. When you have 20 employees this is no big deal, but when you have a couple thousand, it's an even bigger deal. It's not realistic to say that people just pop open the source and try to fix it when they are an employee. Even if you work in the IT group, do you really think it's feasible that a company will diverge from a supported path because of a assessment in their IT group?
You need to be realistic about the benefits of that. The benefits are extended to smaller shops, individuals, and the hobbyists, but not to any decent-sized company. The cost is too high...
Then your friend is full of complete and TOTAL crap. Having worked at MSFT for quite some time with about 20 different groups, your friend is just telling you BS. The poster wan't referring to OO in the sense you're referring to, but the component model that MSFT uses (.dll). Almost all MSFT apps share components between each other so your statement is completely not true.
What's sad is that people reading your post will take it as the truth and go post the same elsewhere to distribute more FUD crap.
Again, another BSOD reference... it gets tiring after a while.
The other way to look at it is that people want to buy the boxes with the software on it and thusly the manufacturers put it there, regardless of contracts. If people don't want something then manufacturers wouldn't put it on the machine as it wouldn't sell.
If you buy a Macintosh you get MacOS. It's not like LinuxPPC comes bundled on the Macs you buy. And there are choices for the PPC platform other than MacOS.
And you can buy a different OS at WalMart and Best Buy. If a consumer doesn't want the OS that came on the machine they have the freedom to get another. I would say could be looked at as a deman issue, not an illegal monopoly issue.
If you don't like closed products don't use them. But it's INSANE to say a whole company should be FORCED to support a controlled standard and not be able to innovate beyond that.
I don't care if this is M$ or not. Maybe IEEE or ACM should make a standard for 3D games and then that way all people who write games will have the nice same engine. And then maybe come up with something that describes how all cars should be the same standard shape so everyone can use the same assembly line.
It's fair right?
Why should only one benefit when everyone deserves a shot?
That's bullcrap - you beat somebody by doing better than they do. Instead of whining, go build a better platform. Linux may be a better server product but it SUCKS for consumers. My Dad wouldn't even be able to load it on his machine, much less use it when it got there.
My problem is that people want to close innovation instead of innovating to beat what they don't like. I think standardizations on OS and apps is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard.
I like diversity - you may not, but you don't have to use diverse products if you don't want. And again, this has nothing to do with M$ - I wouldn't feel good about ANY standard that a company is FORCED to follow for ANY market vertical.
Bad, bad, bad idea.
This is considered a +5 Interesting post?
Come on, if anything it should be +5 Funny. Nothing listed above is illegal, and even worse, the person clearly is only using example he/she has read here.
Machines you have to reboot every day? This is getting old - my damned Win2k machines never reboot and I'm writing this post on a machine that has rebooted for months. But of course the author who got a +5 Interesting wouldn't know, because they don't even run MS products.
Nice... that's like having someone who drives a Jeep Wrangler talk about how reliable a Defender 90 is.
What the typical Slashdot FUD believer doesn't ever get it seems, is that just as M$ spreads FUD about Linux, it goes the other way. Many people I know run M$ products without problem, without getting a virus, etc.
The ILOVEYOU virus happened because of flaws and security holes. Is Linux any better? Is Apache any better? It seems so, but only when it happens to a M$ product.
The Slashdot crowd, and this person in particular, also fails to see that a monopoly itself IS NOT ILLEGAL. If people were so unhappy with M$ products all this time they would switch and be running MacOS or BeOS now wouldn't they?