Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:33:42 -0800
As I said,
1) Vista includes .NET 2.0
2) click once is a managed process and will be more secure WSE 3.0
3) .NET 2.0 will be available for mac/linux
4) not relevant -- no more blocking than using web services
5) see 3)
6) .NET 2.0 compact framework for smart devices
No doubt browsers will continue but they will be doing less and less of the
interactive interface work -- they are fundamentally not suited to get the
job done well along with the myraid of other issues surrounding IE client
(or whatever client you choose). Sure I can spend 6 months working on web
based app interface, or I can spend 2 months for the same windowsforms based
interface and get better functionality with equal exposure to all types of
platforms/users.
Continuing using IE for all the interface work is NOT gonna help bring in
more customers/users -- most users that see the "Your going to an unsecure
web site...blah blah" click on No and that's that -- potential customer
gone. Why, because they have there security setup to do that and they
didn't even know it -- could have happened because they installed Norton
Internet Security. But think about it -- what do you see lining the store
shelves -- it is at the point where there are move Antivirus, spyware,
internet security tools than another other combine form of
applications/games.
Be a user for a day and take yourself out of the developer role -- walk into
your local Fry's Electornics or BestBuy or Compusa or whatever
software/hardware superstore and look around -- 50% of the software has
something to do with keeping you system "clean" -- this is a pretty sad
state of affairs. Sticking with an IE client to do the interface ALL the
interface work is a dead end regardless of your platform.
Rob.
"Bruce Barker" <brubar_nospamplease_@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OVhAIHC$FHA.3096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> thats MS's hope. there are a couple issues
>
> 1) no MS o/s comes with .net installed. its currently an addon (22mb
> download)
> 2) click once is a great way to spead viruses (as the code does not run in
> a sandbox), and MS has not tackled the author validation issues.
> 3) requires ms o/s (apple is still > 6% share)
> 4) many company firewalls will block click once (maybe even smart clients)
> 5) click once only supported by IE (<90% share).
> 6) more personal devices with browsers
>
> with these issues, and ajax getting popular again, browser apps will be
> around for a while.
>
> -- bruce (sqlwork.com)
>
>
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23gqpHyB$FHA.140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> VS 2005 I have:
>> ClickOnce deployment
>> User's that hate and or don't want to use an IE Client (don't blame
>> them)
>>
>> I don't see how ASPX web pages are going to survive? With .NET 2.0 and
>> clickonce deployment my app is 427KB (even with modem dialup speed it
>> doesn't take long to download) -- the user gets a very friendly secure
>> WindowsForm app (most of them don't even notice they're not under IE
>> anymore) that performs considerably faster than any ASP.NET app.
>>
>> The road map as I see it:
>> IE client -- back to static just clickonce links that open up
>> WindowsForms apps
>> Vista -- .NET 2.0 built in (no need to download)
>> WebServices -- called from WindowsForms apps (keeps it secure and
>> firewall friendly)
>> WindowsForms are a HELL of a lot more secure (no IE attached activex
>> components, no data miners, click monitors, etc. etc.)
>>
>> The way I see it -- user interaction is going to move back to
>> WindowsForms since the IE client by definition is just NOT user friendly,
>> NOT programmer friendly, and has a ton of other issues surrounding it in
>> terms of security and performance and flexibility.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, web development will still exist (web services and
>> basic static content), but I believe anyone doing serious business
>> applications using the web will migrate to this approach -- it really is
>> a win win.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Bruce Barker
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- References:
- Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Rob R. Ainscough
- Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- From: Bruce Barker
- Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- Prev by Date: control name change in asp.net 2.0 generated html
- Next by Date: Re: "reload page"
- Previous by thread: Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- Next by thread: Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
