This isn't necessarily a good metric. All this is doing is measuring pages
that contain the file extensoins. Keep in mind, that with ASP.Net and
similar technologies such as JSP, you can have one page that does the same
work as 10. Let's take a web site designed using the DotNetNuke portal. You
may have hundreds upon hundreds of links inside a site, but most of them
will be just a couple of pages. ASP.Net and JSP offer much different ways of
creating interactive forms and pages than any of the other technologies.
What may be one form in ASP.Net could very well be 5 or more pages in ASP as
ASP developers often chain together forms, such as a questionairre.

Better to use the metrics provided by the companies that research web
development trends. Netcraft is almost the defacto standard when it comes to
who is using what and where. Check out:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/03/23/aspnet_overtakes_jsp_and_java_servl
ets.html
for a recent article.

       Hope this helps,
       Mark Fitzpatrick
       Microsoft MVP - FrontPage

Even if you could assume some validity to your data, it would be more
relevant to analyze acceleration or a trending curve rather than usage.
Stats like this are what made one of our more famous Presidents remark,
"there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics".

Wow , that's really enlightening.  there are sooo many holes in this logic I
can't believe I'm responding to it.
1)  There are 736 million HTML pages, that's quite a bit more than PHP.  So
I guess by your standard, Dynamic content generation is a total failure.
2)  Quantity isn't everything.  ASP.NET generates dynamic content... maybe,
just maybe, people do more with less when using ASP.NET?  Or, if you click
through a few of those, you'll realize how many of them are discussons of
PHP.  If you read #2, it shouldn't be surprising why there might be more
discussion on the subject.    And there are a lot of those hits that don't
have ANYTHING to do with technology or what's being used to generate the
content.  PHP and ASP are acronyms for a lot of stuff....
3) ASP.NET was officially released in March of 2002 if I remember correctly.
Even if you want to include beta, it hasn't been out nearly as long as the
others.  Think about AOL though.  Used to have the most intense market
penetration.  That's been dwindling to say the least.  You could look at any
competitor after they first came out, and draw the same conclusion
4) Even if those numbers meant anything, in terms of real adoption and you
want to ignore the impact of #2, then why does More mean much in the context
you are mentioning it?   How many of those users are recreational users vs.
real web sites.  There used to be a lot, and I mean a lot, of web pages with
the Blink Tag.  So what do sheer numbers mean?
5) By those numbers, considering Windows has far more installs than Linux,
would you call Linux a total failure?  It would be very silly to.
6)  Look at the numbers for Macromedia's Flash.  Would you call it a
marketing failure too?

there sure are a lot of programmers making boatloads of cash working with
this 'failed' technology...  maybe they need to learn how smart people query
google and see the light?

Hi,

Are you sure all HTML frame hidden asp.net sides are counted as well?

As well as all top HTML page sites which hide the aspx sites.

Cor

The numbers do not mean anything to me.  I started out six years ago
developing in PHP, then five years ago I moved to ASP since it was cleaner
to work with in my opinion and had decent session tracking (which PHP
lacked).  Then when ASP.NET/C# first came out, I was instantly sold on it.
I hate to touch PHP or ASP anymore, I have been completely spoiled by the
wonderful world of ASP.NET/C#.  And was with version 1, just wait until
version 2.0 :)

So, for me (a software developer for over 20 years), I went in just the
reverse order they have listed.  All my sites I put together now are only
ASP.NET!  And on top of that, every developer I know that was doing asp work
is now moving to ASP.NET.

Let alone the rest. Comparing ASP & ASP.NET, I would choose ASP.NET to get my website up and running in less time & spend the rest of the time if need be in Promoting it

Secondly you have not taken into account Intranet sites. We have a huge array of applicationts running most of which are web based using ASP + Oracle + SQL Server and we are in the process of moving all this to .NET. Thanks to MS. It's now a breeze. You name it, you can use it

Almost half of the programmers are using VB. IF they know VB, I assume that they would have also developed/would move to ASP/ASP.NET in the near future

Specifically if you take my case, I have worked on several failing Web Servers. With .NET & IIS 6.0, I am having less of these issues and concentrating more on what my company would benefit from

But not everyone likes to eat the samething erveyday. If you have not tried this, you should. This is not to flame you

Regards

Trevor Benedict R