elmer said:

For me, C9 performance and reliability has always been abysmal, and it has always been the worst site I use.

 

Given its role (effectively, a “behind the scenes” technical evangelism) it’s emblematic of a serious problem within MS:

 

FAILURE TO RECOGNISE AND ADDRESS BAD PR, BEFORE IT DOES MAJOR DAMAGE.

 

Here we have a site that is targeting technical-minded people, and potential customers, basically screaming out: *DON’T USE ASP.NET*.

 

The technical reality of the cause is irrelevant, the perception is what matters here, and it’s all bad... *REALLY* bad.

 

It’s not as if MS lacks for funds, or lacks for talent... but it apparently lacks the ability to recognise “marketing disaster” even when staring it in the face.

 

A “we’ll fix it in the next version” solution, should not be acceptable to MS, and the current site should be fixed *NOW*.

I agree. This site is an utter disaster (from a technical, not content, point of view), and despite frequent promises of "we're working on it" it's only ever gotten worse in the six years this place has been around. Sure, it occasionally seems to get better but it's always short-lived. It reflects very poorly on MS's abilities as a software company indeed.

 

If I were a higher up at MS, I'd either give them the resources they needed to make things work, fire the entire team and replace them with people who can make it work with the current resources, or shut the whole thing down.

 

I would most definitely not let it continue as is with only vague promises that things will be better in the next version, promises we've heard all too frequently and which have never come true before.