.NET Framework unstable?

[hog]

I contacted my companies IT department that deploys the standard suite of packages plus company specific stuff across all networked PCs, the number runs into thousands of machines, about when will we have the .NET Framework install as a matter of course on all PCs.

 

I was suprised to be told I was ahead of the game and that they have no plans as yet to globally install it. Especially as they say as the .NET is relatively new it is no doubt predictably unstable!

 

Is this true? Is they any evidence out there I can feed back to them to the contrary?

 

Thx

[mooman_fl]

Well I haven't really done the reaserch on it, but I can say from personal experience using .NET with Windows XP that it seems remarkably stable. I have really had no issues with .NET outside of the learning curve.

[wyrd]

Especially as they say as the .NET is relatively new it is no doubt predictably unstable!

 

Oh brother ... :rolleyes:

 

More anti-Microsoft people who say anything made by Microsoft is unstable. On the contrary, most products by Microsoft are quite stable. They're #1 for a reason, and it surely isn't because of unstable products.

 

It's not our fault that some people just don't know how to use Windows properly. :D

 

I'm not saying Microsoft makes 100% stable products 100% of the time either, there are some products that they make which need patching. But the reason they're giving you is just ludicrous; Because it's new it must be unstable.

[mooman_fl]

Actually I won't take exception with them for assuming that since in the past it has been very true concerning Microsoft... and many other software companies. Windows 95 - ME were VERY unstable with regular crashes. Sometimes several in one day or even one session.

 

However I will be quick to tell anyone that this is NOT the case with Windows XP and certainly not witn .NET.

[wyrd]

Windows 98 and 2000 have been fairly stable in my experiences. But even still it holds little weight in comparison to all of the other products they make (games, applications, etc).

[Guest mutant]

Windows 2000 is a great OS. But Win98 is so unstable that people actually came up with a internet-wide name for the blue screen that showed errors :) Blue Screen Of Death or BSOD. I used to have Win98, very unstable.

[Robby]

Very well said Wyrd....

 

I had Win98 for a couple of years and Win ME for 6 months, I never had the BSOD on either, as long as you have all the correct drivers and keep the system clean.

 

I had a BSOD the first month I installed Win2k, I had the wrong device driver. I haven't had a crash since.( 3+ years now)

 

.NET unstable? None that I've experienced.

[philprice]

ive only been using .net studio for about a week but have had no problems, and the frame work since it came out, never had any problems what so ever, unstabilty may come from poorly written .net programs (like any program really) not ms. I think MS bashing is so 1998 and people should just get over them selfs, XP and 2000 are VERY good OS's.

[wyrd]

Hmm, well.. I don't remember having to many problems with Win98. I few crashes here and there, sure, but nothing close to what would constitute "unstable".

 

But *shrug* we can keep judging things on the past.. or we could move forward and judge on the current.

 

So I ask the MS nay-sayers this; What current products (in the last two years) do you know of that Microsoft has made (not published, actually developed in house) that has been unstable? Yes, you may include games if you wish.

[Guest mutant]

Win200, XP and .NET 2003 are very good OSes. So far i think that .NET 2003 is the most stable one. Never had a crash on it. Happened a few times on XP and 2000. Windows is getting better with every release, but they could really have a better privacy policy, which is main cause why people switch to Linux.

[divil]

No, people switch to Linux (in the most part) because they're kids who think it's cool to be different. There's nothing wrong with that, I've been through it myself, but eventually you have to come out of the other side :)

[hog]

Yep, been there done that....Anyway Linux has some work to do before it poses any real threat to MS, that's my view anyway after the experiences I've had with it

[wyrd]

The only work Linux needs to do is get real support from the gaming world... when it comes down to it, that's what drove Windows and the PC to insane success. Sure, Linux has games, and so does Mac, but unfortunately they get very, very few.. and 99% of the time Linux games are just for hosting servers, and Mac just gets crap.

 

Yes.. I am comparing Mac OS with Linux OS. You heard that right.

 

My 2 cents on the Linux situation. :p

[Guest mutant]

Ok, maybe thats not the reason entirely but in some %. But i think you would have to agree that MS went a little too far with the terms of agreement and privacy policy on their latest OSes.

I didnt have Linux for long but it is very nice to work with, and very stable. And yes, Linux lacks games. But great that its open source so you can delete for example some annyoing feature from the kernel or from whatever you want.

[wyrd]

Well, that little open source feature may be good if I was bored and had nothing better to do.. then I could toy with Linux. Other then that...

 

And what privacy policy agreement with MS? I wasn't aware I even had privacy on the internet.

[mooman_fl]

Well you do as much as it is possible to. At least with Linux you don't have to worry about automatically agreeing by default to having your computer info sent to the company, or allowing them to automatically download and install stuff on your computer. Just to name a few things.

 

I am not totally anti-Microsoft... but I AM suspicious.

[wyrd]

As far as I know, Microsoft being the devil and automatically uploading programs to your computer so they can take over the world and everything is just hog wash. Maybe that'll change in the future *shrug* but if you're that worried.. it's what a firewall is for.

 

As for personal info.. who cares. If you've ever registered a domain it's out in the open for everyone to see anyway. Just do a whois on someones domain and prest-o, all the personal info I need from you.

 

If you're worried about business files, etc.. well that's why you encrypt important database info. :p Even so, if you're still that paranoid don't put business info on a puter that you use the internet with, put it on a seperate computer for "business only"

 

People are so paranoid when their SS# are floating around in the real world. They should be more worried about that SS# they put on that form that they just mailed. You can't steal someones identity on the internet, but you sure can in real life.

[Robby]

All we are is a drop of water in the ocean, what can/will they do?

[Guest mutant]

They will do everything to keep their place in the monopoly which they created. That monopoly will be here until all peoply finally understand that this is a problem.

Its not that I hate MS or Windows, cause Windows is a great OS.

[Banjo]

That monopoly will be there until someone can offer a product that that is good enough to make switching from MS software worth the hassle.

OpenOffice is close. It is just struggling because businesses are not yet having to replace their office suites.

Linux is in an even worse position. It is a major change is operating procedure and would require every employee to be re-trained, not just in using the OS but most of the applications will change too since few developers write for Windows and Linux.

 

Plus the fact that no matter how stable Linux is, it is not as easy to use and configure as Windows. I know from experience that most non-techie people are only vaguely comfortable with Windows. Dump them with Linux and you'll double the number of requests for technical support.

[hog]

Well.....I'm glad I started a healthy debate :-)

[Guest mutant]

Some of the companies will switch because of MS's licensing systems. Linux is not in as bad shape as you said, it is very widely used for webhosting (web hosting on Linux is cheaper!), and its used in offices. Its not as good as Windows yet but Im sure i near future they will greatly improve.

[Robby]

I've noticed that almost all web-hosters are offering Windows servers, while only a couple of years ago the majority only offered unix/linux.

[Banjo]

mutant:

Large servers are the only area where Linux is more cost effective. The reason is simple. Linux is cheaper to run because many of the programs including the OS are free. However, you need a knowledgable and skilled person to administer them. This works fine in a server room environment where one engineer can maintain many machines.

However, in the desktop (and small business server) environment this becomes a serious problem because the user does not have the expertise the configure the system themselves and often there will not be a specialist engineer, just the boss or a technically minded employee doing it as a bolton responsibility to their normal job.

[wyrd]

(web hosting on Linux is cheaper!)

 

As you said before, Linux is open source.. so of course it'd be cheaper to host your own Linux web server. But what does that matter? As Robby said most web servers now use Windows. I believe the big change started happening when PHP and MySQL were ported to Windows. Before it was only Linux that did this and PHP/MySQL was insanely popular. However, now, Windows can offer the same options AND more (FrontPage extensions, ASP.NET, MS SQL, Access, etc).

 

Here's a good example of some of the Windows web hosting services that can be found now.. go look at their hosting packages and what options you get. I'd like to see a Linux web server try and offer this.

http://www.webhost4life.com/