Paul Mooney takes on the released "red bull"

March 2 2006

Now that Microsoft has released the Application Analyzer 2006 for Notes, Paul Mooney has reprised his examination of the beta code, code-named "Red Bull".  No longer can Microsoft claim that this is beta...so here are the results of Paul's sought-after test drive.

In part 1, Paul examines the premise and documentation around the now-released Analyzer.  Not much has changed, but there is a new XML-based configuration file.  Some challenges:

  • First, the tool stops analyzing if it finds a template with a standard out-of-the-box name and filename.  Hope you haven't been modifying the standard templates...
  • Second, "Theoretically I could customise the XML file to say that even if the database is nothing like the template and has lots of additional fields, class it as a Quad1 or Quad2. "  Which means that a practitioner in the field could put their finger on the scale, so to speak, and and make a lot of applications look more simple than they are.  Of course, we're not exactly in the realm of airtight ethics, so let's watch out for configuration file hacking.
  • Third, the tool can't be run on a Notes 7 client, but does require the mysterious "Notes 5.16" or higher.
In part 2, Paul reports on the released Application Analyzer's results.  He even has some fun faking out the tool -- taking the out-of-the-box MS Office Document Library in Notes and adding a single field.  All of a sudden, that application is in "quadrant 4" --"Further analysis is required to identify possible solutions from the MS collaboration platform".  

In summary, Paul finds
[The Microsoft Application Analyser] lists the majority of production databases as QUAD3 or QUAD4 (not easy to migrate) and once any QUAD1 or QUAD2 template based application strays off the beaten track, MS knows that Sharepoint is in trouble and lists the database as QUAD3/4.  That's because its not easy to migrate the apps.  We all know it.  On one box, the domino server can easily provide services that multiple MS packages cannot.  And that is accepted by many people... For all its flaws, the tool is honest.  There is no easy migration to MS products... if you read the reports from this tool on your production databases, it tells you that.  Of course, the FUD doesn't tell you that.  We should almost encourage our customers to run this tool.  It tells them

a: Their easy RAD applications in Domino are considered complex in MS land
b: When an MS sales guy comes in and says we can easily migrate your apps (and they do... I have seen it), show him the door.
Sounds like a plan to me.  I wonder if that applies to the bounty-seeking partners, too?

Ed Brill Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Microsoft  Add/View Comments [11]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Axel  | 3/3/2006 6:01:27 AM

    From what I hear in a local forum, the naivity of certain managements regarding the costs of porting apps from one platform to another is quite shocking.

    This tool appears to be no big help.

    On the other hand its a bit problematic to reason that an app is difficult to develop in .NET, only because the tool flags it as being in the 3rd or 4th quadrant. This only means that the tools automatic conversion won't work smoothly. It might actually be simple to build the app from scratch in .NET.

  1. 2  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 3/3/2006 7:15:02 AM

    Ok, but then what's the point of the tool?

  1. 3  Steve Castledine http://www.dominoblog.com | 3/3/2006 7:39:35 AM

    There is no point - its just a marketing tool aimed at producing FUD.

    It does not take software to say that its an impossibility to "migrate" an enterprise of Lotus Notes applications (security/data/logic) to Microsoft. Its a no brainer.

    Applications would have to be designed from the ground up - migration here is a very mis-leading (for obvious reasons) and mis-used word.

    Its all irrelevant anyway - in my experience decisions to move from one platform to another are generally political and/or based on cost of ownership or because the current one is seriously letting the business down.

    The results from some "migration" analysis would have little if any impact on that decision. So its just a marketing "leader" - planting some seeds that such a movement is zero pain.

  1. 4  Paul Mooney http://www.pmooney.net | 3/3/2006 8:31:01 AM

    @3 - Damn...I wish I could have said it that well. I think you summed it up mate.

  1. 5  Charles Robinson  | 3/3/2006 12:44:15 PM

    Do you think Microsoft will ever get wise to DXL? The entire structure, including layout specs, are there for the whole world to see.

  1. 6  david racicot  | 3/3/2006 1:22:56 PM

    Sounds like more "MS is lying to you" material in line with the idea that Roberto came up with in a previous blog. I like this idea, but not as a Lotussphere presentation but as a REAL world issue. Front page news in all tech magazines. Full frontal assault.

  1. 7  Charles Robinson  | 3/3/2006 2:33:31 PM

    Their own tool, whose methodology may be questionable, says that a migration from Notes to MS technologies will require more analysis. They aren't lying, if anything this is refreshingly honest.

  1. 8  Axel  | 3/3/2006 3:12:26 PM

    The point of the tool is to create highly over-optimistic expectations among people who abstain any effort to even try to estimate the costs of the conversion in a rational way.

  1. 9  Wild Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 3/4/2006 5:14:33 AM

    Interesting Enron story from Duffbert:

    { Link }

    ---* Bill

  1. 10  david racicot  | 3/4/2006 3:29:08 PM

    re: Enroll. So yes. They lied.

  1. 11  david racicot  | 3/5/2006 1:52:44 PM

    Sony had to pay (1.5 million) for using a fake critic, maybe MS is next? { Link }