Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: Ed Kaim [MSFT] (edkaim_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 03/28/04

  • Next message: Philip Callan: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it." 
    Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 12:38:22 -0800

    I'm going to address the inaccurate anti-Microsoft issues in this post. I'm
    not going to bite on any of the Linux-based flamebait.

    > I'm a big fan of .NET and Visual Studio.NET. But at my company, we
    > are going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way
    > too much in light of the huge competition from Linux. After all, in
    > order for MS to be successful it needs a large group of developers.

    If your company is considering a switch to Linux because you feel the cost
    of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing some more
    research before making a final decision.

    > At my company, I'm an MS proponent, but I have LOST the battle in
    > terms of justifiying the cost of using Visual Studio when there are
    > free Linux alternatives. My company won't use Visual Studio.NET stuff
    > for internal use because of its cost. Why should management spend
    > thousands of dollars per year for MSDN and VS.NET per developer when
    > it can just use Open Source software and documentation for free?

    Microsoft provides the SDKs for free. Microsoft provides Web development
    tools for free. Microsoft provides millions of lines of sample source code
    (and complete projects) and all documentation for free. You don't have to
    pay a dime to build apps for Microsoft's platform. If you feel you need
    Visual Studio, as millions of developers do, then there is cost because
    Microsoft has to invest in making it better. Much of that cost goes towards
    product servicing. If you can live without the drastic boost in
    productivity, support from hundreds of tools partners, and official
    technical support with a well-defined roadmap, then it's harder to make the
    case. The only really effective arguments you could make for not using
    Visual Studio would be if you need to build cross-platform client
    applications or if you're trying to take the company down from the inside.

    > Especially considering the fact that g++ is really standards
    > compliant,

    Is it more standards-compliant than Visual C++? Look it up--you may be
    surprised. Also see how many 100% ANSI-compliant C++ compilers you can find,
    if any.

    > and that there is ACE+TAO for CORBA development.

    Yes, but most new development is using standards-compliant Web services for
    integration & remoting. Visual Studio excels in Web services development.

    > There is
    > troll tech for GUI app development which is completely cross-platform,
    > and you can choose the license you want, GPL or commercial.

    You can choose to license software you build with Visual Studio under
    whatever license you want.

    > There is
    > even mono and eclipse for .NET development.

    Yes--but this doesn't support the claim you make about why the cost of
    Visual Studio if making you move to Linux.

    > Why does anyone need Microsoft Visual Studio.NET and MSDN then?
    > Especially when it costs thousands per yer for one developer? I can't
    > make the cost argument, and there aren't any Visual Studio.NET
    > installations at my company, only VS 6.0, and any upgrades that happen
    > will be to Linux.

    Let's say the typical developer costs around $120,000 per year (which
    includes salary, benefits, equipment, training, and all other employee
    costs). In order tyo justify that employee, they must produce more than that
    in some way. It could be the development of a small app that helps
    information workers get projects completed faster or their contributions to
    the company's flagship software product. Either way, the faster and more
    effective they can be as a developer, the more value they provide to the
    company. If someone said "we can increase developer productivity by 5% (by
    having all the software on DVDs in the office and reducing the code used to
    integrate it), but it'll cost us an extra 3% ($2,799 for a new MSDN
    Universal subscription)", then most companies would be thrilled. With Visual
    Studio .NET and MSDN, developer productivity can be drastically improved in
    this way. In fact, many of the case studies have shown that development
    productivity reduces product cycles by more than half and project quality
    has increased substantially. You can search
    http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies to find an example similar to what your
    comapny does.

    > But all is not lost. If you follow my pricing guide lines, you will
    > see people stay or convert to VS.NET. I am in the trenches so I know
    > what is going on. Here are my price ideas for VS.NET:
    >
    > Visual Studio.NET Professional: 129 dollars
    > Visual Studio.NET Enterprise : 199 dollars
    > MSDN (The Enterprise version) : 125 dollars per year.
    > VS C# Basic Edition: 29 dollars.

    Thank you for your feedback, but I don't think this would be a justifiable
    business model. I am also in the trenches every day and have seen a huge
    percentage of developers upgrade already while MSDN subscribers
    automatically upgrade as part of their license. When you look at the online
    pricing of alternative offerings, Visual Studio pricing is very fair.

    IBM's Websphere Enterprise Developer: $6,177
    Oracle's Internet Developer Suite: $5,000
    Borland's JBuilder X Enterprise: $3,500
    Microsoft's MSDN Universal (which has more than just tools): $2,799

    "Mike Cox" <mikecoxlinux@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3d6111f1.0403281012.7877707f@posting.google.com...
    > I'm a big fan of .NET and Visual Studio.NET. But at my company, we
    > are going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way
    > too much in light of the huge competition from Linux. After all, in
    > order for MS to be successful it needs a large group of developers.
    >
    > At my company, I'm an MS proponent, but I have LOST the battle in
    > terms of justifiying the cost of using Visual Studio when there are
    > free Linux alternatives. My company won't use Visual Studio.NET stuff
    > for internal use because of its cost. Why should management spend
    > thousands of dollars per year for MSDN and VS.NET per developer when
    > it can just use Open Source software and documentation for free?
    > Especially considering the fact that g++ is really standards
    > compliant, and that there is ACE+TAO for CORBA development. There is
    > troll tech for GUI app development which is completely cross-platform,
    > and you can choose the license you want, GPL or commercial. There is
    > even mono and eclipse for .NET development.
    >
    > Why does anyone need Microsoft Visual Studio.NET and MSDN then?
    > Especially when it costs thousands per yer for one developer? I can't
    > make the cost argument, and there aren't any Visual Studio.NET
    > installations at my company, only VS 6.0, and any upgrades that happen
    > will be to Linux.
    >
    > But all is not lost. If you follow my pricing guide lines, you will
    > see people stay or convert to VS.NET. I am in the trenches so I know
    > what is going on. Here are my price ideas for VS.NET:
    >
    > Visual Studio.NET Professional: 129 dollars
    > Visual Studio.NET Enterprise : 199 dollars
    > MSDN (The Enterprise version) : 125 dollars per year.
    > VS C# Basic Edition: 29 dollars.

  • Next message: Philip Callan: "Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it."

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
      ... >> going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way too ... >> much in light of the huge competition from Linux. ... > cost of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing ... It is not just the developer tools. ...
      (microsoft.public.vsnet.general)
    • Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
      ... >> going to switch to Linux because, quite frankly, VS.NET costs way too ... >> much in light of the huge competition from Linux. ... > cost of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing ... It is not just the developer tools. ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
      ... > too much in light of the huge competition from Linux. ... If your company is considering a switch to Linux because you feel the cost ... of developer tools is too high then you may want to consider doing some more ... Visual Studio, as millions of developers do, then there is cost because ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
      ... but I'll let you know that I don't use Linux myself. ... Microsoft, or any other development company, charges. ... for free, as in no monetary cost, if you want to. ... > Visual Studio, as millions of developers do, then there is cost because ...
      (microsoft.public.vsnet.general)
    • Re: VS.NET is too EXPENSIVE. Developers switching rapidly from it.
      ... but I'll let you know that I don't use Linux myself. ... Microsoft, or any other development company, charges. ... for free, as in no monetary cost, if you want to. ... > Visual Studio, as millions of developers do, then there is cost because ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)