Comments on: Sitecore [v5.3] — The Good, the Bad and the Ugly http://feich.com/2007/09/30/sitecore-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ dis-dis-dat-n-dat Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:48:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Stoffer http://feich.com/2007/09/30/sitecore-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-6 Stoffer Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:26:58 +0000 http://feich.com/2007/09/30/sitecore-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-6 I must say that I concur 100% in that analysis. But I do not think that it matters that the developer interface in sitecore sucks. Most SC developers uses Visual Studio... at least I do.. I only use the Developer interface to create the initial files.. (xsl etc...) What really, really annoys me is the system requirements. I like developing on my laptop... but it is painfully slow to debug and everything... the IIS process alone takes around 300MB ram. Combine that with having VS and SQL server running....it is really slow...and if you are connecting to a SQl server not on your computer... forget it. I do like the architecture alot, and the ideas are really good. The connection of XSL sheets with data is great and very easy to figure out for a developer...and I like the fact that there is absolutely no design limits.. But it's meant to be a development framework I guess. I think it needs alot of tuning here performance wise...it slows your production if you have to wait for system every time you make a little change. Backward compatibility (tried upgrading from 5.2 to 5.3) also needs a serious double check. At least there were som packages that I was unable to transfer...:( I must say that I concur 100% in that analysis.

But I do not think that it matters that the developer interface in sitecore sucks. Most SC developers uses Visual Studio… at least I do.. I only use the Developer interface to create the initial files.. (xsl etc…)

What really, really annoys me is the system requirements. I like developing on my laptop… but it is painfully slow to debug and everything… the IIS process alone takes around 300MB ram. Combine that with having VS and SQL server running….it is really slow…and if you are connecting to a SQl server not on your computer… forget it.

I do like the architecture alot, and the ideas are really good. The connection of XSL sheets with data is great and very easy to figure out for a developer…and I like the fact that there is absolutely no design limits..

But it’s meant to be a development framework I guess. I think it needs alot of tuning here performance wise…it slows your production if you have to wait for system every time you make a little change.

Backward compatibility (tried upgrading from 5.2 to 5.3) also needs a serious double check. At least there were som packages that I was unable to transfer…:(

]]> By: rich http://feich.com/2007/09/30/sitecore-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-5 rich Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:51:44 +0000 http://feich.com/2007/09/30/sitecore-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-5 Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your insight. Sitecore is touted as being a highly scalable solution; however my Sitecore experience with large-scale websites is limited. So I'm not sure what to expect when you have dozens of authors and editors using a variety of desktop computers and internet connections working on a busy large-scale enterprise portal. The folks at Sitecore spent so much energy developing that beautiful windows-like desktop and related sub-applications that sit on it, but they failed with basic usability on so many levels. It's like they failed to see the forest through the trees. Not all business-users have a T1 and a Duo-core machine. On one hand I am impressed with their desktop (as an engineer loving cool technology); but on the other hand I hate it for performance, usability, and buggyness. Developers are required to use this desktop to build the website; however for simple websites you can hide the desktop from the business user and only show them a customized webedit view. It would be interesting to chat with you over a cup of coffee and exchange war stories. I temper my conclusion based upon your input. I will continue to post about my Sitecore experience as I see fit. Thanks! Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your insight. Sitecore is touted as being a highly scalable solution; however my Sitecore experience with large-scale websites is limited. So I’m not sure what to expect when you have dozens of authors and editors using a variety of desktop computers and internet connections working on a busy large-scale enterprise portal.

The folks at Sitecore spent so much energy developing that beautiful windows-like desktop and related sub-applications that sit on it, but they failed with basic usability on so many levels. It’s like they failed to see the forest through the trees. Not all business-users have a T1 and a Duo-core machine. On one hand I am impressed with their desktop (as an engineer loving cool technology); but on the other hand I hate it for performance, usability, and buggyness. Developers are required to use this desktop to build the website; however for simple websites you can hide the desktop from the business user and only show them a customized webedit view.

It would be interesting to chat with you over a cup of coffee and exchange war stories.

I temper my conclusion based upon your input. I will continue to post about my Sitecore experience as I see fit. Thanks!

]]> By: gopo http://feich.com/2007/09/30/sitecore-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-4 gopo Wed, 24 Oct 2007 20:08:00 +0000 http://feich.com/2007/09/30/sitecore-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-4 Hi Rich, A really good analysis. You've almost got everything right. But I do not agree with your conclusion. That's the first impression: Sitecore is for "big boys". Well, it is not. Sitecore has huge performance problems with bigger sites. The beautiful GUI for the editors is a pain in the a**, Sitecores goes down very often, leaving the user with one option: shut IE down via Windows Task Manager. Many of the features are working as long as you keep it small, few items, otherwise you are in big trouble. If not implemented 100% right, you will not have time to enjoy the site, but rather you'll spend it looking at some big log files (> 45 MB) a day. And you really need a geek or at least one man full time dedicated to maintain Sitecore. And speaking about the lousy client, well they are only working in IE and a verry small part in Firefox. Well, I could go on, but I will stop here. I've also learned this the hard way and even had to change job to escape this nightmare Sitecore is. Congrats for you analysis. I wonder if the Sitecore guys had read it. Hi Rich,

A really good analysis. You’ve almost got everything right. But I do not agree with your conclusion. That’s the first impression: Sitecore is for “big boys”. Well, it is not. Sitecore has huge performance problems with bigger sites. The beautiful GUI for the editors is a pain in the a**, Sitecores goes down very often, leaving the user with one option: shut IE down via Windows Task Manager.
Many of the features are working as long as you keep it small, few items, otherwise you are in big trouble.
If not implemented 100% right, you will not have time to enjoy the site, but rather you’ll spend it looking at some big log files (> 45 MB) a day. And you really need a geek or at least one man full time dedicated to maintain Sitecore.
And speaking about the lousy client, well they are only working in IE and a verry small part in Firefox.
Well, I could go on, but I will stop here. I’ve also learned this the hard way and even had to change job to escape this nightmare Sitecore is.
Congrats for you analysis. I wonder if the Sitecore guys had read it.

]]>