.NET developers move applications off the Windows-only .NET Framework onto modern cross-platform .NET, replace components with no direct migration path such as WCF and Web Forms, and reduce hosting cost by running on Linux containers. Companies hire them because the Framework receives no new features and third-party dependencies usually decide whether migration is feasible.
The split between the original Framework and modern .NET is the defining fact of this ecosystem. One is Windows-only and feature-frozen, the other is cross-platform, faster, and released annually. Getting across that gap is most of the work, and some components have no direct route. TechEsperto Solutions maps it before anyone commits.
Staying put means no performance improvements, no new language capabilities, and a shrinking pool of developers willing to work on it.
Our engagements cover Framework to modern .NET migration, WCF replacement, Entity Framework 6 to EF Core migration, Linux containerisation and Azure deployment, version upgrades between modern releases, and desktop application modernisation. Portability assessment comes first on almost every engagement, because it determines whether the rest is a project or a rethink. Clients comparing routes review our .NET development services alongside hiring developers directly.
Dependency portability analysis, project file modernisation, API replacement, and incremental migration with the application deployable throughout. Sequenced so business delivery continues.
Server-side WCF has no direct equivalent, so services are re-exposed over gRPC where contracts are internal and strongly typed, or REST where consumers are varied. A community-maintained WCF implementation is an option where contracts cannot change.
Query behaviour, mapping conventions, and migration history all differ. Handled with query-by-query verification, since silent behaviour changes are the main risk rather than compile errors.
Containerised services on Linux with externalised configuration, managed identity where available, and health probes. Includes cost modelling against your current hosting arrangement.
Annual releases with alternating support lengths mean a policy is needed. We upgrade along long-term support versions and treat it as scheduled maintenance rather than a project.
WinForms and WPF applications moved onto modern .NET, which supports both on Windows. Gains performance and current tooling without a rewrite into a different technology.
Assessment for this work tests migration judgement rather than language familiarity. The valuable skills are reading a portability report and knowing which findings are genuine blockers, understanding what the Framework was providing that modern .NET does not, and verifying that an ORM migration has not silently changed query results. Container and cloud work is frequently staffed alongside our Azure and cloud platform services team.
Microsoft’s assistant and portability analyser handle project file conversion and flag unsupported API usage. They get you a meaningful distance, and knowing what remains manual is the actual expertise.
Identifying Framework APIs with no modern equivalent, those with changed behaviour, and those needing a replacement package. Behaviour differences are more dangerous than missing types because they compile.
Modern .NET assumes built-in dependency injection and a generic host. Applications using a third-party container or a Framework hosting model need that layer reworked deliberately.
Configuration files replaced with layered providers and strongly typed options validated at startup. Prevents a deployment succeeding and failing later on a missing setting.
Asynchronous handling throughout with cancellation tokens propagated. Older codebases frequently mix synchronous and asynchronous calls in ways that cause deadlocks under load.
Allocation profiling, garbage collection mode selection, and server versus workstation configuration. Container memory limits also need respecting, which is a common misconfiguration.
Most clients begin with a migration assessment, because dependency compatibility determines feasibility and nobody should commit budget before knowing it. Options then include portability analysis, Framework migration projects, WCF replacement, an embedded developer, and an upgrade retainer. Budget context sits on our software development cost page. Transparent pricing, an executed NDA, and full intellectual property transfer apply throughout.
We inventory your target framework version, project structure, dependencies and their modern availability, Web Forms and WCF usage, data access approach, and hosting arrangement, then report feasibility and sequence.
A deeper paid analysis producing an API-level compatibility report, a blocker list with proposed resolutions, and an effort estimate per project in the solution. Yours to keep regardless.
Migration delivered in phases, each ending with a deployable application. Quoted per phase so approval stays incremental and cost remains visible throughout.
Contract analysis, replacement approach chosen against consumer requirements, parallel running during transition, and consumer migration coordinated rather than forced in one release.
One specialist inside your team delivering features while progressing migration. Suits organisations that cannot pause delivery and need both happening in parallel.
Version upgrades along long-term support releases, dependency updates, security patching, and hosting cost review. Keeps you inside supported versions without a project each time.
This is frequently the argument that gets a migration approved. Windows server licences across a fleet are a recurring cost that disappears when services run on Linux containers, and modern .NET’s throughput improvements often reduce instance count as well. Our approach is to count the licences first so the business case is explicit, containerise on Linux wherever nothing genuinely blocks it, keep Windows containers only where a real dependency requires them, and right-size instances after migration once the improved runtime behaviour is measurable. Clients working with TechEsperto Solutions get a cost comparison rather than an assertion.
Server licences, per-core costs, and any database licensing tied to the platform. This figure is usually larger than expected and makes the business case straightforward to present.
Web applications and services with no Windows-specific dependency run on Linux without modification once on modern .NET. This is the default target rather than an aspiration.
Modern releases handle more throughput per instance, so capacity should be reassessed once migration completes. Sizing to the old numbers leaves the saving on the table.
COM interoperability, Windows-specific libraries, and desktop components need Windows hosting. We identify these precisely rather than assuming the whole application is constrained.
Managed service pricing compared against your existing arrangement including licences, operations effort, and data transfer. Occasionally the honest answer is that your current hosting is cheaper.
Load testing before and after so the capacity change is documented. Provides the evidence for reducing instance count, which is where the recurring saving actually lands.
Feasibility is decided by a small number of specific components, and identifying yours early prevents wasted planning. Web Forms and server-side WCF are the two with no direct path. Beyond those, dependency availability and Windows-specific interoperability account for almost everything else. Our developers work through each of these and propose resolutions rather than reporting problems. Broader replacement programmes run alongside our legacy software modernisation practice.
No migration path exists, so the interface layer must be rebuilt. Razor Pages suits page-oriented applications closely, MVC suits structured applications, and Blazor suits interface-heavy ones.
Server-side hosting was not ported. gRPC suits internal strongly typed contracts, REST suits varied consumers, and a community implementation preserves existing contracts where consumers cannot change.
Code depending on the older web stack needs replacing with modern equivalents. Usually mechanical once identified, and pervasive enough that finding every instance takes real effort.
Both are supported on modern .NET, on Windows only. Migration is frequently more straightforward than expected and delivers performance and tooling gains without changing technology.
The most common genuine blocker. Options are a maintained alternative, an isolating wrapper, or occasionally reimplementing the specific functionality actually used.
Simpler work with real value. Annual releases mean applications drift out of support quickly, and catching up is straightforward when handled as sequential steps.
//www.techesperto.com/why-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"> why us page.
The entry point is a free migration assessment. Give us read access to the solution and we return a written report covering target framework versions, dependency compatibility, Web Forms and WCF usage, data access approach, Windows-specific interoperability, hosting arrangement, and estimated licence saving, with a recommended sequence and effort per phase. Migration is quoted per phase, which keeps approval incremental. Your team interviews the matched developers, onboarding completes inside a week, and retainers stay optional.
A few days of inventory and a written feasibility report. Clients frequently take it to their own team, which is a reasonable outcome and occasionally the correct one.
API-level compatibility per project, a blocker list with proposed resolutions, and dependency availability. This document determines whether you have a project or a rebuild.
Each phase quoted individually with acceptance criteria covering passing characterisation tests and a deployable application. Budget certainty without approving the whole programme upfront.
Profiles arrive with relevant migration, ORM, and container experience. You assess them against your standards, decline at no cost, and matching continues until the fit is right.
Repository access, build environment, database access, and sprint planning handled immediately. Access provisioning in larger enterprises frequently takes longer than our setup does.
Support begins with version upgrades along long-term support releases plus dependency and security patching, so the application stays inside supported versions.
Our work and story have been picked up by news outlets and databases worldwide.
As featured on
Assessments are free. Portability analysis is a short fixed-price engagement. Migration is quoted per phase against acceptance criteria, which makes budgeting incremental. WCF replacement is priced after contract analysis. Embedded developers are quoted monthly. Hosting is billed to your own accounts, and the licence saving frequently offsets a meaningful share of the project.
Assessment and portability analysis deliver in one to two weeks. A web application with no Web Forms or WCF and healthy dependencies typically migrates in six to twelve weeks. Applications requiring an interface rebuild or WCF replacement run four to nine months, delivered in phases with the original in production throughout.
Migration is best led by one senior developer for consistency, with a second joining for mechanical API and dependency work on larger solutions. Interface rebuilds add front-end capacity. Containerisation adds infrastructure support.
Our developers join your repository, board, and chat workspace and follow your change control process. Weekly sessions cover the current phase, test results, and remaining sequence. Direct developer access throughout.
Read access for the assessment, then contributor access, a build environment, and a development database if we proceed. A mutual NDA is signed first. We work in your environment rather than copying code elsewhere.
We staff for at least four hours of daily overlap with your business day across North American, UK, European, and Australian schedules. Change windows, reviews, and release coordination sit inside that window.
Adopt long-term support releases and skip the shorter-support ones unless a specific feature justifies otherwise. That gives you an upgrade roughly every two years rather than annually, each one small. Retainers treat these as scheduled maintenance, which is considerably cheaper than catching up three versions later.
Migrate where you have active development, where Windows licensing across a fleet is material, where you want current language features and performance, or where hiring has become difficult. Those cover most organisations with an application still under change. Staying is defensible for stable internal applications with no roadmap, running on supported Windows infrastructure, where the migration cost would exceed any benefit, particularly if Web Forms or WCF would force an interface rebuild. The assessment gives you the figures for both, including estimated licence saving, and we recommend on that rather than on principle.
Tell us what you’re building. Our team will get back to you within one business day with a clear, no-obligation plan.
