MSDN - It's not about feature. It's about the nature!

Author

It's not about feature. It's about the nature!

Hongbo

2005-12-06, 6:57 pm

MSDN subscription is for developers who play very important role
to help Microsoft to hold its ground against its competitors. If small
companies is a tiny part of MSDN subscribers, Microsoft will not
loss much even if it ignore them. In such case, I have nothing to say.

MSDN Universal was the synonym of "All develop tools" with around
$2000/year for many years. VS 2003 contains much more features
than VS 6.0 and SQL Server 2000 contains much more features than
SQL Server 6.5, but we didn't get charged for $5000.00/year. Therefore,
the issue here is not about the relationship between number of new features
and the price but about the nature of MSDN subscription.

Everything in MSDN subscription is for development environment only
and one user only. The traditional low price had helped developers and
helped Microsoft itself ultimately against Sun, Borland, etc.
I admit that VS 2005 Team Suite is good package and every team needs
something like it to develop a good application for Windows environment.
With the original low price every small company can afford it.
Unfortunately,
Microsoft Now, with some new features for architecture, optimization and
testing, Microsoft decide to make big money from this release. It changed
MSDN subscription from a developer helper into a money sucker.

If I am right about this, Microsoft is making a strategic mistake: forcing
small teams turn to other tool vendors even to other platforms. Such high
price definitely gives other tool vendors an opportunity to get a slice of
the pie. Small teams still need affordable tools for architecture,
optimization
and testing of their applications. Microsoft kicks them out, hopefully,
someone
else could pick them up.

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
message news:ui5epzn%23FHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Understanding that all analogies are flawed ...
>
> You are not really getting downgraded. But, MS did it to themselves. The
> Professional product in 2005 is much more than the Professional product in
> 2003. It is more like the Enterprise product, minus Visio. But, going from
> Enterprise to Professional sure sounds like a downgrade (you can only eat
> what you ate last w

at a higher price). It is not reality, but
perception
> counts for a lot.
>
> The new products are much larger, so you are eating more and paying more.
>
> --
> Gregory A. Beamer
> MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
>
> ****************************************
*******
> Think Outside the Box!
> ****************************************
*******
> "ML" <schooner@accesswave.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23jiXQhp9FHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
eat[color=darkred]
(up[color=darkred]
not[color=darkred]
getting[color=darkred]
view,[color=darkred]
as[color=darkred]
tester)[color=darkred]
God[color=darkred]
>
>

2005-12-06, 6:57 pm

The only positive thing in all this is that the Team Versions are so flawed
that not having them might be a plus. As is you would need to install all 3
versions to get all the tools across them. For people that do architecture,
development, and testing that makes no sense. MS really messed up IMHO, with
their antiquated role based versions. Unless your on a huge enterprise
level team, the roles are never that defined.

"Hongbo" <hongbo@goodoffices.com> wrote in message
news:%23u0yHKr%23FHA.360@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> MSDN subscription is for developers who play very important role
> to help Microsoft to hold its ground against its competitors. If small
> companies is a tiny part of MSDN subscribers, Microsoft will not
> loss much even if it ignore them. In such case, I have nothing to say.
>
> MSDN Universal was the synonym of "All develop tools" with around
> $2000/year for many years. VS 2003 contains much more features
> than VS 6.0 and SQL Server 2000 contains much more features than
> SQL Server 6.5, but we didn't get charged for $5000.00/year. Therefore,
> the issue here is not about the relationship between number of new
> features
> and the price but about the nature of MSDN subscription.
>
> Everything in MSDN subscription is for development environment only
> and one user only. The traditional low price had helped developers and
> helped Microsoft itself ultimately against Sun, Borland, etc.
> I admit that VS 2005 Team Suite is good package and every team needs
> something like it to develop a good application for Windows environment.
> With the original low price every small company can afford it.
> Unfortunately,
> Microsoft Now, with some new features for architecture, optimization and
> testing, Microsoft decide to make big money from this release. It changed
> MSDN subscription from a developer helper into a money sucker.
>
> If I am right about this, Microsoft is making a strategic mistake: forcing
> small teams turn to other tool vendors even to other platforms. Such high
> price definitely gives other tool vendors an opportunity to get a slice of
> the pie. Small teams still need affordable tools for architecture,
> optimization
> and testing of their applications. Microsoft kicks them out, hopefully,
> someone
> else could pick them up.
>
>
> "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer)" <NoSpamMgbworld@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in
> message news:ui5epzn%23FHA.2156@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> perception
> eat
> (up
> not
> getting
> view,
> as
> tester)
> God
>
>

Gerry Hickman

2005-12-08, 6:57 pm

Hi Hongbo,

> MSDN subscription is for developers who play very important role
> to help Microsoft to hold its ground against its competitors.

At first I didn't get this, but now I read it again, I think you make a
good point.

> MSDN Universal was the synonym of "All develop tools" with around
> $2000/year for many years.

This is the exact reason I purchased my first MSDN "Universal" back in
the late nineties. Back then, I didn't see any point using any system
other than Microsoft. Everything was enterprise focused with dozens of
free tools and SDKs, very few dependencies, hardly any graphics or Flash
on the website, good prices, and zero hype. The teams were all about
cutting edge IT systems, not what some 70 year-old shareholder thinks is
"

".

Now we have the opposite; everything is home focused with the assumption
everyone is on a stand-alone with Admin rights and 24/7 internet. Tools
and "managed" SDK's that cover "Digital rights" for some silly TV
advert, but can't deal with the LSA, nauseating and pointless
dependencies, disco-dancing avatars for the desktop, teddy-bear icons in
XP, a website where you can't find anything except gimmicks, and has
anyone seen the proprietary Flash animation on the Microsoft home page
today 08-Dec-05? This is Microsoft's "Vision of the future"? Yikes:(

There are a lot of big companies that will buy into the Team System (and
any other Microsoft system) for years to come, but I think where
Microsoft will lose out is the young hot-shot guys with the new ideas.
Those guys all used to have the free tools and many ended up suggesting
Microsoft solutions sitting round the purchasing tables (I certainly
did), but everyone is now looking to the new kids on the block like
Linux and open-source, and I have to say I'm not surprised. Go to their
websites and there's no graphics or Flash, it's just straight to
download the free tools and there's no silly "Windows Genuine Advantage"
or "Digital rights Management". A few kilo-bytes later and you've got
tools that you can install without even needing a reboot! Need to move
it to a new server? Just copy a few files and that's it! This w

I'm
doing a big SharePoint migration and I've never seen such a badly
designed, bloated, over-dependent waste of time in all my life, but at
least I won't be out of a job for a while:)

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)

Peter Oliphant

2005-12-08, 6:57 pm

> Those guys all used to have the free tools and many ended up suggesting
> Microsoft solutions sitting round the purchasing tables (I certainly did),

I definitely understand your points. But, to be fair, the VS.NET 2005
Express versions do satisfy the 'free tools' need for low-end developers...

[==P==]

"Gerry Hickman" <gerry666uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eY$BzYE$FHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Hongbo,
>
>
> At first I didn't get this, but now I read it again, I think you make a
> good point.
>
>
> This is the exact reason I purchased my first MSDN "Universal" back in the
> late nineties. Back then, I didn't see any point using any system other
> than Microsoft. Everything was enterprise focused with dozens of free
> tools and SDKs, very few dependencies, hardly any graphics or Flash on the
> website, good prices, and zero hype. The teams were all about cutting edge
> IT systems, not what some 70 year-old shareholder thinks is "

".
>
> Now we have the opposite; everything is home focused with the assumption
> everyone is on a stand-alone with Admin rights and 24/7 internet. Tools
> and "managed" SDK's that cover "Digital rights" for some silly TV advert,
> but can't deal with the LSA, nauseating and pointless dependencies,
> disco-dancing avatars for the desktop, teddy-bear icons in XP, a website
> where you can't find anything except gimmicks, and has anyone seen the
> proprietary Flash animation on the Microsoft home page today 08-Dec-05?
> This is Microsoft's "Vision of the future"? Yikes:(
>
> There are a lot of big companies that will buy into the Team System (and
> any other Microsoft system) for years to come, but I think where Microsoft
> will lose out is the young hot-shot guys with the new ideas. Those guys
> all used to have the free tools and many ended up suggesting Microsoft
> solutions sitting round the purchasing tables (I certainly did), but
> everyone is now looking to the new kids on the block like Linux and
> open-source, and I have to say I'm not surprised. Go to their websites and
> there's no graphics or Flash, it's just straight to download the free
> tools and there's no silly "Windows Genuine Advantage" or "Digital rights
> Management". A few kilo-bytes later and you've got tools that you can
> install without even needing a reboot! Need to move it to a new server?
> Just copy a few files and that's it! This w

I'm doing a big SharePoint
> migration and I've never seen such a badly designed, bloated,
> over-dependent waste of time in all my life, but at least I won't be out
> of a job for a while:)
>
> --
> Gerry Hickman (London UK)

Kevin Provance

2005-12-08, 9:56 pm

Not forever....you'll have to pony up next year when the free period
expires.

- Kev

"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
news:e7sTJjE$FHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> I definitely understand your points. But, to be fair, the VS.NET 2005
> Express versions do satisfy the 'free tools' need for low-end
> developers...
>
> [==P==]
>
> "Gerry Hickman" <gerry666uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eY$BzYE$FHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>

Peter Oliphant

2005-12-09, 6:58 pm

> Not forever....you'll have to pony up next year when the free period
> expires.

Actually, the deal is that if you download BY Nov 7, 2006 it's free to YOU
forever. The 1 year offer only limits when you can get it, not how long you
can use it. I quote from there FAQ page (link provided):

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/support/faq/

11. You said "free for one year" - what does that mean, exactly? Will you be
charging for this later?

We originally announced pricing of Visual Studio Express at US$49. We are
now offering Visual Studio Express for free, as a limited-in-time
promotional offer, until November 6, 2006. Note that we are also offering
SQL Server 2005 Express Edition as a free download, and that this offer is
not limited to the same promotional pricing period as Visual Studio Express.

12. Do customers who acquire the Visual Studio Express products during the
free promotional pricing period have to pay after the first year if they
want to continue to use them?

No, as long as you download Visual Studio Express on or before November 7th
2006, you will not have to pay for it.

[==P==]

"Kevin Provance" <casey@tpasoft.com> wrote in message
news:eyjg%23lG$FHA.216@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Not forever....you'll have to pony up next year when the free period
> expires.
>
> - Kev
>
>
> "Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@RoundTripInc.com> wrote in message
> news:e7sTJjE$FHA.3096@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>

Gerry Hickman

2005-12-09, 6:58 pm

Hi Peter,

You are right to point out the VS.NET "Express" versions, and I'm sure
Microsoft would also cite that as the "solution", but we all know that
in reality there's no point even thinking about using anything called
"light" or "Home" or "LE" or "Academic" or "Express" in the world of
computers and IT! Hell even Windows Server 2003 so-called "web edition"
is incapable of running SQL server! Imagine if you "bought" a Linux
server with apache and were told you're not allowed to run MySQL!

Any budding developer who buys into the "Express" stuff is just setting
themselves up for frustration and annoyance as they're constantly
blocked from being able to progress and I believe it could actually turn
people off Microsoft even if it is "free".

You are still right to point it out though.

I completely identified with Hongbo's point about the old "Universal"
product and how it covers "all" the tools, and that was what sold it for
me. You can guarantee that if you ever buy the strip-down version from
any vendor, it's only a matter of time before you suddenly want to use
feature "x" and unfortunately that feature is only available in the full
version...

Peter Oliphant wrote:
>
> I definitely understand your points. But, to be fair, the VS.NET 2005
> Express versions do satisfy the 'free tools' need for low-end developers...
>
> [==P==]
>
> "Gerry Hickman" <gerry666uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eY$BzYE$FHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
>

--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)

Peter Oliphant

2005-12-09, 6:58 pm

Hi Gerry,

I agree with you that the typical 'Express' or LE versions of software have
always been way short of useful in the long run. But so far I'm finding
Express 'good enough' for what I'm doing. I better, MS hasn't sent out the
FULL version we get with our MSDN subscription yet (due this month, I hope).
I know I could download the full version, but haven't needed to yet, as
Express has been good enough (so far).

Now, some caveats. When I said 'good enough' this is because I AM the
software 'department' at my company. That simplifies things a LOT. Also, my
other usage is a home project where I'm also the only person involved. So
Express is pretty good for my uses.

However, I now am seeing that I could really use a Profiler. So this gets
into what you said about it's basically a 'bait and switch' or 'the first
version is free' kind of marketing tactic. You use Express long enough your
code is kind of locked in (expecially with the new syntax), so if you want
more functionality you have to pay for it.

On the other hand, having Express for free does mean this. An independent
can at least develop a prototype or demo of his big idea for 'free', the
only cost being having a computer and free time. In that sense the Express
versions are actually quite an amazing thing to have offered for free! And
this scenario is symbiotic, in that it lets small developers get to a
position where they will need better tools, but only once they have, say, a
publisher to fund the upgrade.

All that being said, $10K for a developement system is definitely going to
islate all but those with million-dollar-a-year budgets...

I have to laugh a little though. I've been programming for like 36 years. I
once had to 'program' using a maintenance panel (i.e., click binary on/off
PHYSICAL switches to enter an address, others to enter data, one memory
location at a time). And I've used compilers that did not resolve addresses
in a relative sense, so if you added a line of code all jumps and branches
had to be changed manually to accomidate for the new addresses to jump to.
So all this talk about how one's hand's are tied if they don't have, say,
the profiler I covet now, seems a bit wimpy (but I TOTALLY understand, as I
feel this way too, and have become 'lazy' with all the new tools)...LOL

[==P==]
"Gerry Hickman" <gerry666uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eoV57dP$FHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Peter,
>
> You are right to point out the VS.NET "Express" versions, and I'm sure
> Microsoft would also cite that as the "solution", but we all know that in
> reality there's no point even thinking about using anything called "light"
> or "Home" or "LE" or "Academic" or "Express" in the world of computers and
> IT! Hell even Windows Server 2003 so-called "web edition" is incapable of
> running SQL server! Imagine if you "bought" a Linux server with apache and
> were told you're not allowed to run MySQL!
>
> Any budding developer who buys into the "Express" stuff is just setting
> themselves up for frustration and annoyance as they're constantly blocked
> from being able to progress and I believe it could actually turn people
> off Microsoft even if it is "free".
>
> You are still right to point it out though.
>
> I completely identified with Hongbo's point about the old "Universal"
> product and how it covers "all" the tools, and that was what sold it for
> me. You can guarantee that if you ever buy the strip-down version from any
> vendor, it's only a matter of time before you suddenly want to use feature
> "x" and unfortunately that feature is only available in the full
> version...
>
> Peter Oliphant wrote:
>
>
> --
> Gerry Hickman (London UK)

Sponsored Links