Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

jondavis.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#41

Post by jasonkester »

desu wrote: post #22
acg wrote: post #4

On the Microsoft stack side, everyone knows about Visual Studio. The licensing cost for the Team Suite is $10,939. LAMP developers just love to point that kind of thing out. But folks, the fact is, that price is not measurable as the equivalent of LAMP freeware. It’s for an enterprise shop that needs very advanced and sophisticated tools for performing every corporate software role in a software development lifecycle…

Not to mention the subtle insinuation that the open source "freeware" is just a toy and everyone knows you have to pay for the real stuff. I cannot imagine how Microsoft developers begin a project. "Today, I'm going to write this new web app to change the world! Right after I spend the day setting up Microsoft Team Studio and purchasing software licenses for every computer I plan to use!" How inspiring.

You realize that you can use the same copy of Visual Studio twice, right?

As in "Today I'm going to write this new web app, as soon as I install Eclipse, Django and SVN" would sound just as silly. It's just development tools.

Oh, and for what it's worth, Microsoft will give you 15 seats worth of MSDN Universal for $400 if you tell them you're a small business. Per seat, the MS tools are the cheapest part of setting up a new dev box for me. (CodeSmith, ReSharper and Ants Profiler are the ones that hurt!)

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#42

Post by StrawberryFrog »

asnyder wrote: post #34
StrawberryFrog wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones do you think is one a par with it, and why? "vastly" may be an overstatement, but it's very good. The only issue is that for simple designs a smaller, free product (e.g. postgreSQL) may have all that you need. A lot of the new stuff in SQL server seems to be Business Intelligence tools, which I don't pay much attention too. the SQL stuff where you "select * from ...." seems to be much the same for several…

Databases such as Oracle, and DB2 are either equal or better in certain respects. Furthermore, I personally find PostgreSQL to be on par if not better than MSSQL. Aside from PostgreSQL's inability to return multiple recordsets, IMHO it's easier to write stored procedures, functions, views, and triggers in PostgreSQL. In addition PostgreSQL is significantly more consistent syntacticly. Every so often my brother who wo…

I last used Oracle circa 2002. The experience of using the SQL workbench tools, and installing a new server was far worse, just awful compared to the SQL Server equivalent.

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#43

Post by DanielBMarkham »

tvon wrote: post #29
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the research I've seen shows Microsoft consistently in the top three as far as sales, and in the top two as far as sales on the windows platform. This has held true over many, many years. Got some points you'd like to make that amount to something?

Sales don't magically equate to better technology or a superior product.

So?

At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can.

Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it?

The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to have something more than an unfounded opinion to base a discussion on.

Which is my point.

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#44

Post by desu »

jasonkester wrote: post #40
desu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how does your reckoning change when the big day comes that you have to buy another server? And another? And then another 20? And you've locked yourself into the MS stack? That $2k/box starts adding up real quick.

First off, I'm not a Microsoft salesman, so please take anything I tell you as the experiences of one person, and weigh it against your own. That being said, one box on the MS stack can handle a lot of capacity. Enough that I'm constantly amazed to see other people's startups folding under the load of, say, a single slashdot article or a few thousand people kicking the tires at once. The box that Twiddla lives on has…

Seeing a few startups' websites fall over says precisely nothing. They could have been on $20 VPSs for all we know - a twenty dollar VPS being something that is possible with OSS. Or maybe not well tuned - since the vast majority of startups use open source software, it's only natural that you will see a disproportionate number of sites using that software fail.

Anyway, I'm glad your technology choices are working out for you. However, you must understand that a $2k per box markup would be a stroke of death for many lower-margin startups.

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#45

Post by desu »

jasonkester wrote: post #41
desu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the subtle insinuation that the open source "freeware" is just a toy and everyone knows you have to pay for the real stuff. I cannot imagine how Microsoft developers begin a project. "Today, I'm going to write this new web app to change the world! Right after I spend the day setting up Microsoft Team Studio and purchasing software licenses for every computer I plan to use!" How inspiring.

You realize that you can use the same copy of Visual Studio twice, right? As in "Today I'm going to write this new web app, as soon as I install Eclipse, Django and SVN" would sound just as silly. It's just development tools. Oh, and for what it's worth, Microsoft will give you 15 seats worth of MSDN Universal for $400 if you tell them you're a small business. Per seat, the MS tools are the cheapest part of setting u…

I guess I just don't like integrated mega-software like "team studio". Give me some nice, loose tools that work together well. Git is all the collaboration tool I need.

And, for what it's worth, the open source community will give you unlimited seats worth of all the best web development software in the world for $0.00 :D

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#46

Post by javery »

gaius wrote: post #23
javery wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely, Windows isn't that expensive (look at the difference in EC2 pricing) but SQL Server is where they get you. It's not Oracle bad, but for a small startup it might as well be.

A small startup would sign up to the BizSpark programme, tho'.

I am a BizSpark member and network partner and I agree it's a good program. The problem is that it's only for 3 years, so you still need to keep costs in mind.

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#47

Post by ams6110 »

StrawberryFrog wrote: post #42
asnyder wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Databases such as Oracle, and DB2 are either equal or better in certain respects. Furthermore, I personally find PostgreSQL to be on par if not better than MSSQL. Aside from PostgreSQL's inability to return multiple recordsets, IMHO it's easier to write stored procedures, functions, views, and triggers in PostgreSQL. In addition PostgreSQL is significantly more consistent syntacticly. Every so often my brother who wo…

I last used Oracle circa 2002. The experience of using the SQL workbench tools, and installing a new server was far worse, just awful compared to the SQL Server equivalent.

Oracle's tools and installers are still not what you'd expect for the price. They are vastly improved from 2002 however.

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#48

Post by windsurfer »

steverb wrote: post #39
windsurfer wrote: post #28

I know as a student, it's waaaay too expensive. I could eithter get 4 months of rent, or a legal copy of some microsoft software. Guess which one I chose?

Except that as a student you get most everything on the MS Stack for free. Enjoy your straw man.

They have student pricing for microsoft server and sql?

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#49

Post by steverb »

windsurfer wrote: post #48
steverb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that as a student you get most everything on the MS Stack for free. Enjoy your straw man.

They have student pricing for microsoft server and sql?

Yes. They are both free under the dream spark program.

To be clear, it's SQL Server express or developer edition, but if your goal is just learning the stack then it's enough.

https://www.dreamspark.com/default.aspx

Re: Is The Microsoft Stack Really More Expensive?

#50

Post by makecheck »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #43
tvon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sales don't magically equate to better technology or a superior product.

So? At the very least they amount to people doing due dilligence and making the best choice they can. Now you can argue all those people don't really know what they're doing, and you sit in a position of actually knowing they're making a mistake, but that's all so much posturing now, isn't it? The point is, I'm providing stats, facts, information. It's great to be able to argue their relevance, because it's great to…

Please offer us some more statistics and facts, then. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of value in sales figures. Remember that Microsoft is huge, with a ridiculous number of resources, and control of a dominant platform; they would have to be completely incompetent not to achieve high sales figures, especially on their own turf.

Here would be a more interesting statistic: can you show a case where a business or university IT department spent several weeks evaluating a number of competing products in detail, and concluded (complete with spreadsheets) that Microsoft's solution was undoubtedly the cheapest and most robust long-term investment?

Post reply on HN