CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › IT › Software › .NET and Microsoft statistics

.NET and Microsoft statistics

Started by Daniel Fowler9 · · 👁 5 views · 109 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Daniel Fowler9northernorca25Jose Stewart7restlessmaker2slycrane94Patrick Morris3Aaron Sanchez7Gary Lee53John Palmer4Bryan Fisher7hollowcyclist10Betty Gonzalez30ALarry Castillo66Dana Miller6
Gary Lee53 Gary Lee53 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jun 2003
#21 ·
slycrane94 said:It’s the same deal when people ask if you even run Windows as a server—they don't even specify what kind of server we're talking about. Most folks use Windows servers simply because they’re already using Windows on their desktops and for those non-critical edge applications. That’s a far cry from claiming that Microsoft dominates the high-end server market.

Take this for example:
A company runs two servers; one handles Microsoft Exchange, while the other hosts a database and an information system based on a J2EE solution running on Linux.

I mean, really, try comparing the two. Running a clunky Exchange setup versus an Informix database paired with an IS just isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.

Generally speaking, the issue is that Exchange is such a resource hog that it eats up 1GB of virtual memory, leaves leaks everywhere it goes, and then some. You need a machine with at least 1GB of physical RAM just to cope, and you practically have to reboot it every month just to clear out all the junk it leaves behind in memory. And yet, Exchange itself is performing a task that is X times smaller than whatever is running on that second server. Since there's zero room left on that second machine for anything else, it’s pretty obvious that if you wanted to run any other Microsoft product, you'd be forced to buy another server entirely.

So, I have to ask: how can anyone claim Microsoft rules the top-tier server segment when even their most basic tools, like Exchange, don't even function properly? On the flip side, you take the exact same server—hardware-wise, mind you—which actually has less memory available, throw Informix and a BES on it, and everything runs perfectly fine for about 50 users.

We all know why that specific solution was chosen. It was because it was available. Not too long ago, they were doing some reorganization in that office and needed to separate the servers, and the admin just looks at this Linux server and says, "Man, I haven't even turned this thing off or restarted it in two years; hold on, let me find the root password, I think I've already forgotten it..."
John Palmer4 John Palmer4 Active Member
50 messages
joined Oct 2008
#22 ·
Haha, why not just go with SuSE and get OpenExchange up and running? link It’s definitely worth checking out the online demo!
Daniel Fowler9 Daniel Fowler9 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Aug 2003
#23 ·
Jose Stewart7 said:It's because he’s actually smart enough to know better than to jump into nonsense like this.

The way you say that totally implies that you're the dumb one for even trying, which is hilarious. Honestly, I've been watching how you operate and I've noticed a few things:

1) It seems like every single time I post anything here, you have to come at me with at least two consecutive posts of your own. Is one reply really not enough for you, or what gives?

2) I took a little dive through those newsgroups you told me to check out, just to see what you were talking about. And man, I saw it—you get all worked up and defensive the second anyone there breathes even the slightest bit of criticism toward Java, or shows the tiniest hint that they might actually find .NET somewhat decent. After seeing your posts on the newsgroups (especially the way you talk to people there), I can only walk away with one conclusion: Jose Stewart7, you are seriously unhinged.

Daniel Fowler9🙄
Jose Stewart7 Jose Stewart7 Newcomer
4 messages
joined May 2006
#24 ·
Daniel Fowler9 said:I suppose this implies that you might be making a mistake by jumping in blindly.

Daniel Fowler9🙄

That is essentially what I was suggesting.
Aaron Sanchez7 Aaron Sanchez7 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Aug 2003
#25 ·
Spot on, absolutely. Seriously. You might want to ask yourself why Shadowman is staying quiet instead of trying to debunk this. It’s because he knows. Shadowman

Trust me, it isn't 🙂 Any more than half of what you just wrote... honestly, it’s pretty embarrassing to call yourself a mathematician when you clearly don't have a clue about statistics, much like how you don't have a clue about 🙂
Bryan Fisher7 Bryan Fisher7 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Jan 2003
#26 ·
Daniel Fowler9, if you want a real debate on this, post the actual document. Otherwise, it just looks like some fake white paper cooked up for Microsoft PR.

Personally, I think more than half of what you wrote is flat-out wrong, or at least some kind of statistical trick to make things look better than they are. Take DBMS, for example: my company uses Oracle because no other system could actually handle our databases. That’s not an opinion; it’s just a limitation of Microsoft SQL Server.
Total installation numbers don't mean a thing.

Microsoft servers are still way less common than Unix. I say this because the firm I work for deals with tons of major corporations, and I've seen plenty of massive systems. Trust me, there's much more Solaris, HP-UX, and the like out there.

Java is still the industry standard. .NET is trying to get there, but it needs to shake off those growing pains first. And obviously, they need to release virtual machines for other platforms, or it's a non-starter.

Nobody is disputing that Microsoft is currently the most powerful software company on the planet. I assume they'll stay that way. But this kind of propaganda actually does them more harm than good. Microsoft built its empire on workstation OSs and consumer apps. They'll stay #1 there. But when it comes to enterprise systems, servers, DBMS, and so on, there are still stronger players, and that trend isn't changing anytime soon.

KRT, please chill out. Drop the "retarded" and "idiot" stuff from your vocabulary. You sound like a guy at a construction site rather than someone participating in a software forum.
Aaron Sanchez7 Aaron Sanchez7 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Aug 2003
#27 ·
So, on Friday Microsoft changed its DNS sol that requests for www.microsoft.com no longer resolve to machines on Microsoft’s own network, but instead are handled by the Akamai caching system, which runs Linux.
Akamai provides an internet-wide caching system, which can act as a symmetric defence to distributed denial of service attacks. Just as a denial of service attack funnels traffic fra many different points to a single destination, Akamai's DNS servers multiplex requests for a specific hostname to the nearest point to each attacking machine in its global caching system, diminishing the effect of the attack by dividing the inbound requests amongst its many servers, and limiting the amount of DDoS traffic by localising the distance between attacker and target. Akamai presents a more challenging target for a DDoS than any single network, and would seem to be the best practical step where a distributed denial of service is directed at a hostname that the target organisation cannot reasonably take offline.

Microsoft was able to defend against an earlier DDoS aimed at windowsupdate.com by taking that hostname out of the DNS, as windowsupdate.com was less important to its operations than the attackers expected.

Many web forums, including those at Anandtech and Slashdot ara discussing The irony of The www.microsoft.com site apparently running Linux. Additionally, we are seeing a quantity of mail asking why we are reporting www.microsoft.com running the “impossible” combination of the linux operating system and Microsoft-IIS/6.0 web server.

When we request www.microsoft.com the DNS directs us to a server operated by Akamai. If you repeat this test, note that the actual Akamai server you connect to will differ according to your location on the internet and may vary from request to request. Akamai’s http caching servers run Linux, and so we report Linux as The operating system. However Akamai also forwards The http server: header from the original server as part of the cached content, and so we report “Microsoft-IIS/6.0” as the web server.

$ telnet www.microsoft.com http
Trying 213.161.82.44...
Connected to a562.cd.akamai.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.1
Host: www.microsoft.com

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
P3P: CP='ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA
PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo CNT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI'
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Content-Length: 45238
Content-Type: text/html
Expires : Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:35:25 GMT
Cache-Control: max-age=0, no-cache, no-store
Pragma: no-cache
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:35:25 GMT
Connection: keep-alive
Daniel Fowler9 Daniel Fowler9 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Aug 2003
#28 ·
Jose Stewart7 said:Look, in my specific example here, we're talking about an absolute growth rate that's actually twice as big as what you're seeing!
Man, I'm feeling like a solid +19 compared to your +10, Kuzis!

Look, let's just play along for a second and assume you're actually right, okay? Like, let's just pretend that everything you're saying is 100% factual and that this document really does interpret things exactly the way you think it does.

So, we’d basically be looking at a scenario like this, for example:

Look, if J2EE was used by, say, some massive corporation with like 123,423,346,100 clients and then bumped up to 123,423,356,100, you wouldn't even blink because that’s basically zero growth, right? But man, if Microsoft started at absolutely zero presence and suddenly jumped to 100 companies, the charts would look insane, showing this massive, explosive growth out of nowhere! Is that what you were getting at, Jose Stewart7?

Alright, let’s use a little bit of common sense here for a second: if the people who put that document together actually designed those charts to show things the way Jose Stewart7 claims they do, what kind of actual value would those graphs provide to the investors, the Wall Street traders, or the big-time capitalists this whole thing is written for? I mean, seriously, what useful intel could data presented in such a skewed way possibly offer to anyone looking to make a move? The answer is absolutely nothing! That kind of information would be completely worthless for any legitimate investment purpose whatsoever. And honestly, do you guys really believe that a serious, top-tier analytical firm with a massive reputation would go out of its way to cheat its own clients by handing them fake, murky, misleading, or just plain useless reports??? I highly doubt it.
Look, it’s pretty obvious to me that some folks in this thread just can't stomach the reality of how things actually work in IT because it doesn't fit their personal little worldview, you know? And then you’ve got the other crowd who views everything strictly through the lens of whatever is happening at their specific office, jumping in with stuff like, "Hold on a second, what you're saying can't be right because we use Linux and Oracle at my job!" But seriously, guys, your company isn't the center of the universe. The world is massive! I only started this whole discussion because I wanted to lay out some solid, high-quality info that everyone could actually use as a roadmap. Instead of being dismissive and saying, "Hey, thanks for the effort Daniel Fowler9, but you're totally undermining me," please, don't do that—because when you undermine me, you're basically dismissing the people who actually put that document together too. That report isn't fake, but it's definitely not meant to be read one way. It’s written specifically so investors can see exactly where the money needs to go without having to jump through hoops! That's why that ridiculous interpretation was so misguided; if the document actually contained all that nonsense, no investor would touch it. I mean, really, do you honestly believe clients would pay top dollar for reports that were completely useless??? Just think about it for a second!

Daniel Fowler9🙄
Gary Lee53 Gary Lee53 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jun 2003
#29 ·
John Palmer4 said:Heh, I mean, why not just throw SuSE on there and get OpenExchange up and running? link Honestly, it might be worth checking out the online demo if you have a second.

It’s not actually about my own company, though. We run exclusively Linux at my workplace, but this particular guy doesn't seem to know much about Linux, and frankly, he doesn't look like the type who wants any trouble...
Gary Lee53 Gary Lee53 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jun 2003
#30 ·
So, I finally got my hands on the document and took a closer look at it. I find myself agreeing with what everyone else has been saying, but first, let me drop this quote here:
Quote : Reflecting in part The strength of ( pre-merger ) Compaq and Dell as Intel x86-based industry
standard server suppliers and the numerical skew of the survey sample base toward small to
midsize enterprises, these two vendors have a correspondingly large share of mentions as
enterprise systems vendors.
Primary supplier shares fall to 17% for Compaq and 14% for Dell AT system 390-class user sites;
for HP, EMC, IBM, Sun and Unisys, primary shares rise to 11%, 15%, 24% and 16% and 3%,
respectively.

The thing is, I noticed Microsoft isn't even mentioned here. Not a peep. And then, right after that, they actually try to compare J2EE and .NET! First, they claim Microsoft has zero footprint in the enterprise solution space, and then they turn around and attempt to weigh them against each other. It’s like trying to compare apples to oranges, isn't it? .NET and J2EE aren't even in the same league—they aren't complementary, and they don't share much common ground. They lay out these premises at the very beginning and then immediately pivot to comparing their market shares. But how can you possibly compare markets when the needs of the people choosing .NET versus those choosing J2EE aren't even remotely identical? And yet, they move straight to declaring .NET the winner over J2EE....

I honestly have no idea who these folks are that put this report together, but these numbers just don't add up to me. If you look at the chart on page 71, it shows 89% running .NET while 46% are using J2EE solutions.

Now, I have to ask: How is that even possible, considering .NET is relatively young compared to Java? How could the software industry manage to capture such a massive chunk of the market and churn out that much software in such a short window of time??? 😕

Let's focus on RH. I've only ever heard of two software firms that actually went with .NET! Even in our neck of the woods, there are quite a few dev shops, and I know plenty of them that crossed .NET off their list before they even started!

Forget about .NET! I know of one software firm that actually switched their entire database because so many potential clients refused to buy anything running on Microsoft SQL Server. I'm not sure which database they migrated to, since I haven't kept in touch with them lately.

Everywhere I look, people seem to be running away from Microsoft when it comes to the core domains of their IT operations. Microsoft might hang on for a long time as the go-to desktop OS, or maybe at the edges of a system where uptime isn't the absolute top priority, but the heavy-duty backbone systems? Those are almost always built on something else entirely.

So, quite frankly, I have no clue where they are getting these figures... 😕

To be honest, it feels to me like building a major bank's information system based on Windows Server and .NET would be the most reckless move my company could ever make...
Gary Lee53 Gary Lee53 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jun 2003
#31 ·
Daniel Fowler9 said:Then you have those other types who view everything strictly through the lens of whatever is happening at their own office, making claims like, "Hold on a second, what you're saying can't be right because we use Linux and Oracle at my company..." But honestly, folks, your workplace isn't the center of the universe.

But Daniel, just take a look at the mix of people on this forum. We have users from all over the country. Okay, so now look at the balance. You're out here championing .NET, while there might be one or two neutral voices floating around, but on the flip side, you've got five others standing firm against Microsoft and .NET!

Doesn't that suggest something is a little off with those statistics?

I’d actually be pretty worried if I were the only person left advocating for J2EE... because then it would be pretty obvious that either I, or my entire company, had completely missed the mark or misjudged the situation entirely.
northernorca25 northernorca25 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Aug 2003
#32 ·
Daniel Fowler9 said:That document isn't fake, but it's definitely not useless either. It’s basically engineered so investors can easily—not struggle to—spot where the money should go. That’s why that garbage interpretation was so malicious; if the doc actually talked that much nonsense, no investor would touch it. You really think clients would pay top dollar for reports that are totally worthless? Think about it.

The target audience for this thing clearly isn't serious corporations. It's more for semi-informed individuals who need to read stuff like this just to feel happy and secure.
slycrane94 slycrane94 Active Member
58 messages
joined Dec 2002
#33 ·
Daniel Fowler9, the whole document is packed with misleading graphs (we're talking a 5% discrepancy that looks like a 100% difference on paper).

It’s clearly designed for investors and people who don't have a clue. Why? Because they just needed something to hand over, and since those folks are already poorly informed, it doesn't matter what nonsense you shove into the report.

Besides, the study only looks at the US and a mere 1,600 different companies or government agencies. Do you realize how small that sample size is? What chance does it have of being globally representative like you claim?

Take a look at the actual arguments against this document and what it claims, then think about it.

And just because some supposedly "serious" firm put it together—which, given it's for investors, means it isn't—doesn't guarantee the data is solid. The way the information is presented makes it obvious this wasn't built for accuracy, but for marketing. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft had a hand in this somewhere.
Daniel Fowler9 Daniel Fowler9 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Aug 2003
#34 ·
Gary Lee53 said:Alright, so I finally got my hands on the document myself and gave it a real deep dive. Honestly, I’m right there with the rest of you guys, but first, let me drop this quote here:
...............................
...............................
The thing is, I’m looking at this and I don't see Microsoft mentioned at all. Not even a whisper! And then, get this—they actually try to compare J2EE and .NET right after! First they act like Microsoft has zero footprint in Enterprise system solutions, and then they turn around and start comparing them? It’s like trying to compare apples and oranges! .NET and J2EE aren't even the same ballpark, they aren't complementary, and they honestly have nothing in common. They lay out all this stuff at the beginning and then immediately jump into comparing markets. But how on earth can you compare markets when the needs of the people choosing .NET versus those picking J2EE aren't even remotely identical? And then they just immediately declare .NET the big winner over J2EE....

Gary Lee53, seriously, can you even read??? Did you miss the fact that the whole document is split into several different sections? One section covers Enterprise system (hardware), another handles networking, then there's software, fourth is IT services, and fifth is wireless tech.
That little snippet you pulled above is talking about servers—as in physical machines—not servers as in operating systems. Of course Microsoft isn't showing up in that specific category since they don't make hardware, they just make software! But look, I’ve been talking about the part where they analyze the software industry, and if you look there, as we can clearly see, Microsoft is the king of the hill. That’s where your whole "discrepancy" and "mismatch" idea is coming from.

Daniel Fowler9🙄
Daniel Fowler9 Daniel Fowler9 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Aug 2003
#35 ·
slycrane94 said:Daniel Fowler9, the whole document is just loaded with fake charts (I mean, we're talking a measly 5% difference, but looking at those graphs you'd swear it was at least double).

Hahaha, now that's a good one!

Daniel Fowler9🙄
Gary Lee53 Gary Lee53 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Jun 2003
#36 ·
Daniel Fowler9 said:Gary Lee53, honestly, can you even read? Didn't you notice the document is split into several distinct sections: one covers Enterprise system (hardware), the next deals with networking, then there's software, followed by IT services, and finally wireless technologies.

Hallo, is anyone actually home? What are we even talking about here if not enterprise systems? You keep obsessively pushing .NET, which has absolutely nothing to do with this (though I guess some people just see it as a tandem to J2EE)... It seems like you haven't quite grasped the fundamental concepts yet. Maybe head back over to that C++ thread and actually read what Jose Stewart7 and I wrote regarding enterprise systems. It’s pretty obvious that in your excitement, you didn't even bother to read. You just felt the need to comment and throw out a counterpoint regardless of what was actually written. You really ought to start studying this stuff properly. I mean, why do you think it's named that way? Why wouldn't they have just clearly labeled it "hardware" and called it a day!???!?

I don't even know why I'm bothering myself with this... Math, look, maybe learn something first before coming in here to argue and call people illiterate... Me out.... 🙄 🙄
Daniel Fowler9 Daniel Fowler9 MemberOP
45 messages
joined Aug 2003
#37 ·
Alright, let’s lay it all out on the table:

1) Nobody on this thread actually takes my word for it.
2) And nobody seems to trust the actual documentation I shared with you either—so basically, you aren't buying what the experts who put it together are selling.

The real question here is: who are you actually listening to? Because right now, it seems like you're just relying on those "gut feelings" of yours that are based on either

a) whatever little situation is happening at your own company, or
b) absolutely nothing at all, besides your own wildly-imaginative-pipe-dream-style wishes.

Look, we can't really have a productive conversation like this because, honestly, no one else here has brought a single real argument to the table to back up their claims, yet somehow, you won't even look at mine.

Daniel Fowler9🙄
hollowcyclist10 hollowcyclist10 Newcomer
7 messages
joined Feb 2004
#38 ·
Daniel Fowler9 said:So, let's wrap this up:

I suppose nobody on this thread actually believes a word I say.
It seems nobody actually trusts the documentation I provided, which I suppose means you don't really trust the experts who put it together either.

The question remains: who can we actually trust, if we look beyond those mere "rough estimates" that seem to be based on...

I suppose it depends on the current situation at your firm, or perhaps somewhere else entirely.
I suppose it won't be found anywhere else, except perhaps on your own. I suppose one could wonder what exactly was on their mind during those restless nights, though I doubt any answer would truly satisfy the curiosity.I suppose I should probably just leave things as they are, though I suspect nothing much will change regardless.

It seems we've reached an impasse, as I suppose I am the only one here actually presenting arguments to support any claims, yet my reasoning remains met with nothing but skepticism.

Daniel Fowler9🙄

I suppose I should weigh in on this as well. I've spent quite a bit of time working on various EAI projects over in Germany for several different firms, primarily utilizing tools like BEA Weblogic, Tuxedo, TIBCO Integration Manager, and Randevouz, and I am still active in that space today. Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to collaborate with major players such as Sun Microsystems, SAP, and Lucent Technologies. In all my experience, I don't think I've ever seen Microsoft used for those kinds of enterprise tasks; the furthest we ever went was developing an MSSQL adapter, though I honestly doubt if anyone actually uses it. When it comes to databases, Oracle tends to dominate, followed by Informix, and it seems like every legitimate, serious operation is built and run on Unix. While Microsoft certainly rules the desktop market, there isn't much else to say about them in that arena. In these circles, nobody even mentions Microsoft, and people aren't even familiar with things like .NET or C#—there's just zero interest. As long as they have systems that are proven and reliable, they won't look elsewhere, and frankly, if you even bring up Microsoft, the reaction is usually pretty telling.
Jose Stewart7 Jose Stewart7 Newcomer
4 messages
joined May 2006
#39 ·
Daniel Fowler9 said:Alright, let me try to summarize things here:

1) It seems nobody in this thread actually believes me.


I suppose you could call that strange.


2) Furthermore, no one seems to trust the document I provided (which means, I guess, the experts who drafted it aren't being taken at their word either).


Actually, it isn't that we don't believe it; we are simply trying to read it with a sense of critical understanding.


The real question is: who are we supposed to trust, other than your "rough" estimates which seem to be based either

a) on what is happening within your own company, or
b) on nothing at all besides your own wishful thinking-driven desires

We can't really have a productive conversation like this, because it feels as though no one besides myself has offered any concrete arguments to support their claims. And yet, my arguments aren't being accepted.


My assessments are based on what I observe and what I learn from others. Since I maintain contact with many professionals across various companies and even different continents, I am able to gauge the state of their organizations for two main reasons:
a) to identify potential career opportunities
b) to assess market trends so I can appropriately adopt new skills.
For me, this is a matter of vital importance for my career longevity. Every ten years or so, I find myself switching languages (c -> c++ -> java), so I expect to transition to something new in about 3 to 6 years. However, that is perhaps less important since I focus on accumulating knowledge that remains largely portable.

I mostly work with the same technologies as hollowcyclist10, though in my case, I work heavily with DB2 (which I consider more robust than Informix).

I would be curious to ask how many people within the industry you actually have in your professional network.
Jose Stewart7 Jose Stewart7 Newcomer
4 messages
joined May 2006
#40 ·
bizz said:I suppose I should weigh in here as well. I have worked on several Enterprise Application Integration projects in Germany for various companies, utilizing tools like Oracle WebLogic, Oracle Tuxedo, TIBCO Integration Manager, and Rendezvous, among others. I am still active in this field today. During my career, I have had the opportunity to collaborate with many major players, such as Sun Microsystems, SAP, and Lucent Technologies. In my experience, I have never really seen Microsoft used for these types of high-level tasks; the furthest we ever went was developing an MSSQL adapter, though I am not entirely sure if anyone actually uses it. When it comes to databases, Oracle is the dominant force, followed by IBM Informix. It seems that almost any serious enterprise operation is built and run on Unix. While Microsoft certainly dominates the desktop market, there isn't much else to say regarding that sector. In this specific professional context, nobody even mentions Microsoft; people aren't even aware of what .NET or C# are, nor do they show any interest. As long as they have proven, reliable systems, they have no reason to look elsewhere. Honestly, if someone even brings up Microsoft in these circles, the reaction can be quite telling.


<shameless plug>
If you happen to need EAI telecommunicators 😁
</shameless plug>

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads