flame-bait contra Re: anti dot-net spew

[Kevin Brown]

TI is going to be producing the Sparc Ultra III for Sun.  Alpha is Dead or
dying.  AMD is about to (or has) release the Sledgehammer, their competitor for
the 64-bit world.  Wouldn't surprise me if Motorola got out of the Desktop
world, but probably not while Apple is selling the systems.  It's gonna be fun
to watch AMD and Intel going head-to-head in the 64-bit world.  As long as AMD
stays in the market, Intel has nothing to fear from Big Bad Uncle Sam coming
after it for being a Monopoly, but of course Intel hasn't done the things that
Microsoft did to get their monopoly (or am I wrong?).

> I'm not certain the "only runs on Intel" is much of a distinction.  As far as
> I know Itanium will be the only chip in its league.
> 
> Cost of development and building a fab is getting just to high for there to
> be more than one producer.  IBM, HP, and Compaq are getting out of the CPU
> biz.  Motorolla probably will too.  Don't know about SUN.
> 
> As for having to upgrade every three years, aren't you the one who says the
> cost of hardware and the OS is "irrelevant"?
> 
> (((
> 
> I used to accept that at face value, but now I wonder about opportunity cost.
>  If MIS saves 20% on hard and soft plant then it can buy 20% more new toys
> [or the firm can re-invest the money elsewhere] *every* year.  The
> compounding effect will add up.
> 
> Also, I encounter a lot of entrepreneurs and smaller businesses that are very
> sensitive to initial costs.  A 20% cost difference can be the difference
> between having a thingamajig and having no thingamajig at all.  (For some
> [many] business models no thingamajig means no business.)
> 
> )))
> 
> On Monday 04 March 2002 23:02, you wrote:
> > Excellent points!!!  Especially about the constant upgrade path.
> >
> > Consider this:
> > 1.  Assume Java is backward compatible.  I think it mostly is,
> > and the parts that are not, the compiler warns you about using
> > a depricated api.
> > 2.  Java 1,0 programs still work in a 1.2 JVM, right?
> > 3.  Sun supports their OS's for 5 years after they are declared
> > at end of life.  This announcement was made for Solaris 2.6
> > about a year ago.  Microsoft hasn't supported any product version
> > for five years yet.
> >
> >
> > With these considerations, figure out the total cost of ownership
> > for the project, from birth to death.  Use Microsoft's track
> > record.  You know they will force you to upgrade OS at least
> > every 3 years.  Also consider the price of hardware.  Sun boxes
> > and AIX boxes are more expensive than Intel-based Compaqs or IBMs.
> >
> > Have fun!
> >
> > George
> >
> > Sundar Narayanasamy wrote:
> > > Joseph,
> > >
> > > This is what I infer by reading .NET, though I might be biased as I have
> > > successfully worked/implemented quite a few J2EE projects.
> > >
> > >                 1. .NET is not just a framework on how to develop your
> > > application, you have to buy middle layer support that would enable you
> > > to run .NET apps. Of course these middle layer products are released by
> > > M$ and you pay a hefty price for that.
> > >                     Even J2EE needs J2EE complaint servers to support
> > > their framework, but you can get better than commercial grade free
> > > software like JBoss, Enhydra totally free.
> > >
> > >                 2. Even when you buy M$ software, lot of times you have
> > > to train your employees and/or pay lot of money for support contract
> > > with M$.( I am implementing MS SMS for our company and had few questions
> > > about certain things, but when I asked the questions in their News
> > > Group, one of the M$ representative politely asked me take advantage of
> > > their current specials on training sessions-- i.e $3000 for one day
> > > session in Las Vegas)
> > >
> > >                 3. .NET implements M$ way of developing applications
> > > that are tightly integrated to one another(though they claim otherwise).
> > > It is not based on MVC model, which any object oriented programmer would
> > > swear by.
> > >
> > >                4. I haven't yet read field case studies on successful
> > > enterprise level .NET implementations outside Microsoft; whereas J2EE
> > > has many to go by.
> > >
> > >                5. And since M$ always ties their software releases with
> > > Operating System and Servers, you have to upgrade your hardware/software
> > > regularly to get continuous support from M$ and their vendors. My
> > > philosophy is - if it works why fix it. ( We have some old Venix
> > > systems, which we still use actively; they work!)
> > >
> > >                 etc..
> > >
> > > Sundar
> > >
> > > Joseph Gledhill wrote:
> > > >I need some legitimate reasons not to go with .NET as a development
> > > >platform.  Any comments would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >thanks,
> > > >
> > > >Joseph