I just asked this question in an Asp.Net Forum, but I would like to hear from anyone in this community that has made the switch from doing everything by hand in Asp.Net to using Umbraco?
Are there things I can't do in Umbraco that I could if I build my own site?
How much learning curve is involved? I am starting a new site and trying to find a faster way as I have 3 sites to build and I have been putting them off for years.
I've (and the company i work for) made the switch a few years ago from our own inhouse developed CMS (built on MVC) to Umbraco, and I have'nt regretted it one second, and it's made me a better developer.
Are there things I can't do in Umbraco that I could if I build my own site?
No, I have never felt "stuck" and not beeing able to do something in Umbraco that I usually could do in something I developed myself.
How much learning curve is involved?
Umbraco is good in that way, that it's very quick to get started with. Read a tutorial or get a subscription of Umbraco.tv and your good to go quite fast.
I wrote a blogpost in december about our switch from inhouse developed to Umbraco, and what we've gained from it, and I think it could be a good read since it sounds like you are in the same situation we where a few years ago: http://24days.in/umbraco-cms/2016/moving-to-umbracoland/
Hope any of this was helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions..
I got errors installing Umbraco into Visual Studio 2017 so I gave up already.
Does Umbraco work with Visual Studio 2017?
I was very turned off by all the dependencies for Umbraco. I wouldn't install anything with MySQL as I am a Microsoft developer.
Perhaps it is a neat way to build websites,, but all the crap it installs and the fact I couldn't get it installed made me decide to just keep using Asp.Net.
Sounds like you've already thrown in the towel, but just in case not here are some observations.
I tend to use VS2015 with Umbraco. I've heard VS2017 isn't quite up to snuff yet (e.g., I've heard that there are issues just opening projects much smaller than Umbraco). This is probably more of an issue to do with VS2017 not being fully released yet.
The dependencies it installs are for a good reason. For example, MySQL is installed because Umbraco is capable of running on a number of databases (MySQL, SQL Server, SQL Server CE, SQL Azure, and so on). This makes Umbraco very flexible.
If you are concerned about the file size, I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you install Umbraco with NuGet, you can create a Git Ignore rule to exclude most files from your repo (they will be automatically restored on rebuild with NuGet package restore).
That being said, if you don't need Umbraco, then plain ASP.NET should be a fine option. If you need a content entry interface, you might want to reconsider using Umbraco.
I haven't completely given up; I hate how long it takes to build sites by hand, so the idea of Umbraco looks appealing, but I get frustrated easy when things do not work.
Visual Studio 2017 full version comes out on the 7th of March, so I will try again when it does. I agree VS 2017 still has some issues and I think it is not really ready to be released (Team Foundation Services still give me sync errors that work in 2015, so I may try Umbraco in 2015).
I just wish packages like MySQL were optional for those that want to use and not required as with SQL Server Express being free I can't think of one reason anyone should use it unless they are a Microsoft hater.
Thanks for your replies, I will try again when full version of VS 2017 comes out.
There are actually valid reasons to choose MySQL. For example, SQL Server Express has some limitations (no more than 10GB database, no more than a single CPU). These limitations have been loosening over the years, but keep in mind Umbraco has been around for the better part of a decade. I remember when SQL Server Express was limited to 1GB, and a full license was in the thousands of dollars. It could make a lot of sense for some people to choose MySQL given those factors.
In 20 years have never had a database get over 10 Gig, and that is working for some very large companies on huge projects. Unless someone is storing images in a database, that is an extreme amount of data and the company should be able to afford a license for SQL Server if they have that much data.
My point is MySQL Should be an add on, not a core required part of the program.
It turned me off to Umbraco, I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that way.
I just don't like Oracle products. When my (and my clients) development tools are Microsoft, the Operating Systems I use are Microsoft, I can feel confident if a new version of Windows in the future breaks SQL Server, Microsoft will go down the hall, knock on the door and work out the problem.
With 3rd part databases you have to rely on that 3rd party still being in business and still wanting to support that product.
I also don't like companies that use products like My SQL because they can't afford me if they can't afford SQL Server.
I like project footprints to be as small as possible and only install needed components.
It may be worth mentioning that you don't actually have to install MySQL on the machine. A MySQL assembly will be added to the bin folder to support the MySQL client interface, but that's about it.
And of course, just because it adds support for MySQL does not mean you need to use it. You are still free to use SQL Server.
And true, this slightly increases the footprint. However, considering it's a server side footprint, it shouldn't impact website visitors.
If you think there is a considerable advantage to decoupling MySQL so that it is installed as a separate component rather than as the core of Umbraco, you can always submit a feature request here: http://issues.umbraco.org/issues
I suspect you'll not get much traction, however, as I don't see integrated MySQL support being an issue for most people.
How difficult is it to transition from Web Forms / MVC to Umbraco?
I just asked this question in an Asp.Net Forum, but I would like to hear from anyone in this community that has made the switch from doing everything by hand in Asp.Net to using Umbraco?
Are there things I can't do in Umbraco that I could if I build my own site?
How much learning curve is involved? I am starting a new site and trying to find a faster way as I have 3 sites to build and I have been putting them off for years.
Next year I am going to stop procrastinating.
Many thanks
Hi!
I've (and the company i work for) made the switch a few years ago from our own inhouse developed CMS (built on MVC) to Umbraco, and I have'nt regretted it one second, and it's made me a better developer.
Are there things I can't do in Umbraco that I could if I build my own site? No, I have never felt "stuck" and not beeing able to do something in Umbraco that I usually could do in something I developed myself.
How much learning curve is involved? Umbraco is good in that way, that it's very quick to get started with. Read a tutorial or get a subscription of Umbraco.tv and your good to go quite fast.
I wrote a blogpost in december about our switch from inhouse developed to Umbraco, and what we've gained from it, and I think it could be a good read since it sounds like you are in the same situation we where a few years ago: http://24days.in/umbraco-cms/2016/moving-to-umbracoland/
Hope any of this was helpful. Let me know if you have any other questions..
Take care!
Thanks for the article.
I got errors installing Umbraco into Visual Studio 2017 so I gave up already.
Does Umbraco work with Visual Studio 2017?
I was very turned off by all the dependencies for Umbraco. I wouldn't install anything with MySQL as I am a Microsoft developer.
Perhaps it is a neat way to build websites,, but all the crap it installs and the fact I couldn't get it installed made me decide to just keep using Asp.Net.
Sounds like you've already thrown in the towel, but just in case not here are some observations.
I tend to use VS2015 with Umbraco. I've heard VS2017 isn't quite up to snuff yet (e.g., I've heard that there are issues just opening projects much smaller than Umbraco). This is probably more of an issue to do with VS2017 not being fully released yet.
The dependencies it installs are for a good reason. For example, MySQL is installed because Umbraco is capable of running on a number of databases (MySQL, SQL Server, SQL Server CE, SQL Azure, and so on). This makes Umbraco very flexible.
If you are concerned about the file size, I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you install Umbraco with NuGet, you can create a Git Ignore rule to exclude most files from your repo (they will be automatically restored on rebuild with NuGet package restore).
That being said, if you don't need Umbraco, then plain ASP.NET should be a fine option. If you need a content entry interface, you might want to reconsider using Umbraco.
I haven't completely given up; I hate how long it takes to build sites by hand, so the idea of Umbraco looks appealing, but I get frustrated easy when things do not work.
Visual Studio 2017 full version comes out on the 7th of March, so I will try again when it does. I agree VS 2017 still has some issues and I think it is not really ready to be released (Team Foundation Services still give me sync errors that work in 2015, so I may try Umbraco in 2015).
I just wish packages like MySQL were optional for those that want to use and not required as with SQL Server Express being free I can't think of one reason anyone should use it unless they are a Microsoft hater.
Thanks for your replies, I will try again when full version of VS 2017 comes out.
There are actually valid reasons to choose MySQL. For example, SQL Server Express has some limitations (no more than 10GB database, no more than a single CPU). These limitations have been loosening over the years, but keep in mind Umbraco has been around for the better part of a decade. I remember when SQL Server Express was limited to 1GB, and a full license was in the thousands of dollars. It could make a lot of sense for some people to choose MySQL given those factors.
In 20 years have never had a database get over 10 Gig, and that is working for some very large companies on huge projects. Unless someone is storing images in a database, that is an extreme amount of data and the company should be able to afford a license for SQL Server if they have that much data.
My point is MySQL Should be an add on, not a core required part of the program.
It turned me off to Umbraco, I am sure I am not the only one who thinks that way.
What in particular do you find troublesome about MySQL being part of Umbraco? Why should that be a factor in your deciding to use it or not?
I just don't like Oracle products. When my (and my clients) development tools are Microsoft, the Operating Systems I use are Microsoft, I can feel confident if a new version of Windows in the future breaks SQL Server, Microsoft will go down the hall, knock on the door and work out the problem.
With 3rd part databases you have to rely on that 3rd party still being in business and still wanting to support that product.
I also don't like companies that use products like My SQL because they can't afford me if they can't afford SQL Server.
I like project footprints to be as small as possible and only install needed components.
It may be worth mentioning that you don't actually have to install MySQL on the machine. A MySQL assembly will be added to the bin folder to support the MySQL client interface, but that's about it.
And of course, just because it adds support for MySQL does not mean you need to use it. You are still free to use SQL Server.
And true, this slightly increases the footprint. However, considering it's a server side footprint, it shouldn't impact website visitors.
If you think there is a considerable advantage to decoupling MySQL so that it is installed as a separate component rather than as the core of Umbraco, you can always submit a feature request here: http://issues.umbraco.org/issues
I suspect you'll not get much traction, however, as I don't see integrated MySQL support being an issue for most people.
Thanks for all your replies, I am sure you all like this product.
I already gave up, how do I unsubscribe from this thread.
In the top right, there is a "Following" button. If you click that, it should unsubscribe you from further notifications.
is working on a reply...