Coffeehouse Thread

31 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

SQL Server 2000 is losing ground -- Where the H**L is Yukon?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    EuanG

    Excellent, glad we could clear it up.

    -Euan

  • User profile image
    Jackco

    try mysql it free it has ASP support because mysql has the ODBC support
    http://www.mysql.com

    but PHP as direct access to the database server because it does not use ODBC at all. I could say that PHP is faster then ASP maybe PHP is better then ASP.
    http://www.php.net

    Mysql and PHP are both open source. In other word Mysql and PHP are in fast progress. SQL Server 2000 is losing ground.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Jackco wrote:
    try mysql it free it has ASP support because mysql has the ODBC support
    http://www.mysql.com

    but PHP as direct access to the database server because it does not use ODBC at all. I could say that PHP is faster then ASP maybe PHP is better then ASP.
    http://www.php.net

    Mysql and PHP are both open source. In other word Mysql and PHP are in fast progress. SQL Server 2000 is losing ground.


    Don't you mean ASP.NET? Not ASP. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe ASP is a scripting language that is 3-5 times slower than PHP while ASP.NET is a compiled framework that  performance wise, blows PHP away, even with Zend Optimizer.

    SQL Server 2000 is not losing ground to MySQL because while it is an enterprise class product, MySQL is not.

  • User profile image
    ktegels

    Shining Arcanine wrote:
    Don't you mean ASP.NET? Not ASP. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe ASP is a scripting language that is 3-5 times slower than PHP while ASP.NET is a compiled framework that  performance wise, blows PHP away, even with Zend Optimizer.

    SQL Server 2000 is not losing ground to MySQL because while it is an enterprise class product, MySQL is not.


    Rage on Pokebrother!

    As somebody that uses both, MySQL is certainly fine for some things, like, when I need a database on Debian or I'm implementing some application that was pre-written for it. It's certainly easier to me to use than some of the other DBs available in that scope since it is significantly like SQL Server.

    Where MySQL fell apart for me in maintaining anything more than a single-application system. At the time I did a lot with it (I waS working C# Data Access then) that was fine.

    When it came to using it for more than one application or having to do a lot of administration work against it, the tools then weren't up to snuff compared to SQL Server.

    I'm sure than since MySQL AB incorporated and found a profit motivation to make MySQL more competitive that the product has continued to improve. Its easy for them to agile in that sense. But then, I find it ironic that in order to get their paper on how MySQL can reduce your TCO by 90%, you have to register on their site.

  • User profile image
    Jackco

    Shining Arcanine wrote:
    Jackco wrote:try mysql it free it has ASP support because mysql has the ODBC support
    http://www.mysql.com

    but PHP as direct access to the database server because it does not use ODBC at all. I could say that PHP is faster then ASP maybe PHP is better then ASP.
    http://www.php.net

    Mysql and PHP are both open source. In other word Mysql and PHP are in fast progress. SQL Server 2000 is losing ground.


    Don't you mean ASP.NET? Not ASP. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe ASP is a scripting language that is 3-5 times slower than PHP while ASP.NET is a compiled framework that  performance wise, blows PHP away, even with Zend Optimizer.

    SQL Server 2000 is not losing ground to MySQL because while it is an enterprise class product, MySQL is not.


    The thing I like about Open Source is that there is more people working on MySQL and PHP worldwide then MsSQL and ASP.NET. Microsoft will never be open as Open Source.  compare IE with Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org

  • User profile image
    sbc

    I think the fact that Windows has a monopoly seems to help a lot.

    Open Source can only get better and is often designed to work cross-platform. Unfortunately no one has the funds to really compete on the same level as Microsoft which has immense profits and a huge bank account with no debt.

    IBM and Novell are the only ones that can really compete (perhaps Sun and Redhat stand a small chance)

    I wonder what Redhat would do if they had $50bn in the bank? Would they make Linux even better and user friendly, or make their products proprietary and closed source?

    For cheap web hosting with moderate traffic LAMP is the best solution (Linux Apache, MySQL, PHP)

  • User profile image
    ktegels

    sbc wrote:
    I think the fact that Windows has a monopoly seems to help a lot.

    Open Source can only get better and is often designed to work cross-platform. Unfortunately no one has the funds to really compete on the same level as Microsoft which has immense profits and a huge bank account with no debt.

    IBM and Novell are the only ones that can really compete (perhaps Sun and Redhat stand a small chance)

    I wonder what Redhat would do if they had $50bn in the bank? Would they make Linux even better and user friendly, or make their products proprietary and closed source?

    For cheap web hosting with moderate traffic LAMP is the best solution (Linux Apache, MySQL, PHP)


    I don't believe that being a Monopoly (if it were) helps Microsoft develop better products in the least. In fact, I think it hurts them. When everybody is running your stuff, you can't be as agile was you want. If the "delay" of Whidbey and Yukon have demonstrated anything, its that. A&B/Miller has kind of proven that just because you're virtual monopoly, that doesn't mean you have best product. Smiley

    As for what any company would do, they would do what companies are legally obligated to do: maximize shareholder return. As alturistic as supporting open source sounds, in the end, they have no choice, they have to sell something. With Linux, you're paying for the "value they add to it." With Microsoft, you're paying for the "value they add to you."

  • User profile image
    sbc

    Lets hope Whidbey and Yukon are much higher quality and bug-free than previous versions. Pity Visual Studio is so expensive (unless you get massive discounts if you are non-profit or government [as you are spending taxes for the tools])

    Also it would be good if SourceSafe was anywhere near as good as CVS (or Subversion). Why not have CVS/Subversion support in Visual Studio? Probably not as these are widely used by the Open Source community, which Microsoft seems to be against (at least at the OS / Office Suite level - Linux / Open Office)

  • User profile image
    ktegels

    sbc wrote:
    Lets hope Whidbey and Yukon are much higher quality and bug-free than previous versions. Pity Visual Studio is so expensive (unless you get massive discounts if you are non-profit or government [as you are spending taxes for the tools])

    Also it would be good if SourceSafe was anywhere near as good as CVS (or Subversion). Why not have CVS/Subversion support in Visual Studio? Probably not as these are widely used by the Open Source community, which Microsoft seems to be against (at least at the OS / Office Suite level - Linux / Open Office)


    Sorry, I couldn't stop laughing.

    Let's compare: You can get pro, full edition, retail: $500. Now go figure out how much it would cost you to equip yourself with WebSphere. "So expensive" must be relative to what, NotePad?

    I can use CVS all day long with Visual Studio if I want too. I doesn't strike me that Microsoft doesn't want us not to use CVS or SubVersion. In fact, it seems rather popular. Yes, they provide Visual SourceSafe. Yes, its a minimalist soultion. Fine, don't use it.

    Maybe I listen to the collective too much and just can't see things from the other point of view about OpenOffice. But I don't see Microsoft as being against Open Source as much as they are for their own products. But then, in our capitalist Economy, that exactly what they should be.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    Does CVS work from within Visual Studio, integrated as well like SourceSafe?

    Unfortunately being in the UK, US products have not gone done in price (I think I have read somewhere PC's can cost $500 less if you buy them in the US rather than the UK. Visual Studio.NET Pro costs £855 ($1,537) in the UK, $989 in the US - why the huge difference (apart from exchange rates)?

    The poor US$ helps exports from the US but harms imports to the US from Europe and Japan. US products cost us the same in the UK, but make the US companies more. It's cheaper to fly to America, buy Visual Studio (or a PC), and then fly back.

    Is there a Visual Studio just for Web Development (no Win Forms, but supporting both C# and VB.NET)?

    Dreamweaver MX costs $370 in the US, £350 ($629) in the UK. So it is a lot cheaper for Web Development.

    The closest .NET IDE (only?) to Visual Studio is SharpDevelop. Doesn't have ASP.NET support and so is probably nowhere near Visual Studio in terms of features. Pretty good though considering it is Open Source - also compiles for Mono as well as Microsoft.NET.

    It is expensive if you are non-profit, which is why some companies are using languages like Python (which has a basic free IDE). What about the Eclipse IDE as well? Komodo only costs $295. Not for VB.NET or C# but works for Python/Perl/Tcl/PHP/XSLT (Open Source languages). It shows that IDE's can be a lot cheaper.

    What profit is made on Visual Studio, is it 80% like it is for Windows/Office? IMHO anything that makes that much profit is overcharged for (I suppose you could argue for value for money).

  • User profile image
    spod

    [quote user="ktegels" ]
       When everybody is running your stuff, you can't be as agile was you want.

    This is a particularly interesting balancing act in windows:

    In addition to new customers, a large segment of the market for longhorn are people who are running existing versions of our os, so we are essentially competing with ourselves in making longhorn compelling enough that these people want to upgrade. 
    We must inovate significantly between versions, and offer a really compelling value add to customers for this to happen.

       However we also have to try to maintain backwards compatibilty with every application written for previous versions of the platform, including the ones that made use of undocumented stuff, or non-specified behaviour ( if they break, microsoft is blamed, whatever the reason... ).

    It's an interesting line to walk...

  • User profile image
    ktegels

    sbc wrote:
    Does CVS work from within Visual Studio, integrated as well like SourceSafe?

    Unfortunately being in the UK, US products have not gone done in price (I think I have read somewhere PC's can cost $500 less if you buy them in the US rather than the UK. Visual Studio.NET Pro costs £855 ($1,537) in the UK, $989 in the US - why the huge difference (apart from exchange rates)?

    The poor US$ helps exports from the US but harms imports to the US from Europe and Japan. US products cost us the same in the UK, but make the US companies more. It's cheaper to fly to America, buy Visual Studio (or a PC), and then fly back.

    Is there a Visual Studio just for Web Development (no Win Forms, but supporting both C# and VB.NET)?

    Dreamweaver MX costs $370 in the US, £350 ($629) in the UK. So it is a lot cheaper for Web Development.

    The closest .NET IDE (only?) to Visual Studio is SharpDevelop. Doesn't have ASP.NET support and so is probably nowhere near Visual Studio in terms of features. Pretty good though considering it is Open Source - also compiles for Mono as well as Microsoft.NET.

    It is expensive if you are non-profit, which is why some companies are using languages like Python (which has a basic free IDE). What about the Eclipse IDE as well? Komodo only costs $295. Not for VB.NET or C# but works for Python/Perl/Tcl/PHP/XSLT (Open Source languages). It shows that IDE's can be a lot cheaper.

    What profit is made on Visual Studio, is it 80% like it is for Windows/Office? IMHO anything that makes that much profit is overcharged for (I suppose you could argue for value for money).


    I don't care if its integrated or not. I'm not that lazy. IJW like its supposed to. <grin />

    I can't speak about the UK markets other than suggest maybe it would be cheaper to buy from the US, pay the conversion and have it shipped.

    Yes, there is, its free and its called WebMatrix.

    I use Komodo alot because VS.NET doesn't debug XSLT very well. I still frequently find myself using TextPad for VB.NET. Having said that, I'm happy to pay the $1500 per year to renew my MSDN subscription, since it makes me very, very product to have all of the tools.



  • User profile image
    sbc

    WebMatrix tends to reformat your code (as does Visual Studio), does not allow you to specify tabs for indenting or allow you to customise the syntax highlighting. Also WebMatrix does not like Dreamweaver code and has not been updated in a while.

    I like to keep control of my code formatting and style and not have an editor reformat it (unless I specify it to)

    It also can not compile code (which is why I use SharpDevelop).

    So there is no Visual Studio.NET Web Developer Edition then? Pity, I am sure people would use it and it should cost less that the Pro edition (due to lack of Winforms support)

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.