Re: Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?

It is interesting to me that, when Microsoft adds another technology to the
toolbox, so many people seem to think that it is somehow supplanting or
replacing some other technology, or making it obsolete. I don't see how
anyone can assume that ClickOnce is going to replace ASP.Net, or make web
applications obsolete. It is simply another tool in the toolbox. No doubt it
will be found useful for many situations, and that it will replace ASP.Net
solutions in a number of instances. But from what I've read, even from
Microsoft, it is not expected to supplant ASP.Net, or in any way make web
applications go the way of the dinosaur. In fact, ClickOnce is just one of
many emerging Microsoft technologies that, rather than limit us, provide us
with more choices. It provides us with the ability to create solutions that
are more appropriate to the given requirements. Among these solutions, some
will be ASP.Net, some will be ClickOnce, some will be Web Services, some
with be Indigo, some will be XAML, etc., etc.

Think of it this way. There is a peg board out there of requirements. Some
of the holes are square. Some are round. Some are trapezoid. Some are oval.
Now, ASP.Net is like a round peg. We have had to shave our ASP.Net pegs a
bit to get them to fit into the oval holes. Now, Microsoft has created an
oval peg. I don't think it would fit well in the round holes. But it is
certainly easier to fit it into the oval ones.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
You can lead a fish to a bicycle,
but you can't make it stink.

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O61zmQE$FHA.3992@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> At some point a port has to be open if the end user wants contact with the
> outside world. If the user is VPN then no issues at all.
>
> I think my statement is about the future, not Today -- I'm more interested
> in the future as today has got user acceptance problems which I assume you
> don't believe -- however the statistic are available on the web if you
> want to see why people aren't using IE (of any flavor) and jumping on the
> web. Something needs to be done and keep a concept/technology like and IE
> client as the only way to do it is not good for anyone. The future will
> be a hybrid of the two IMHO.
>
> It is feasible today and being used today -- I'm not sure why you think
> people are OK with having a IE Client but NOT ok with have .NET framework?
> Dialup download might be a little painful, but not unreasonable at 22
> MB -- certainly no more unreasonable than SP2 or the numerous other
> software patches (on any platform).
>
> I agree in 2 years HTML will still be around so will ASP.NET, but those
> technologies will become redundant and as those spending the money on
> development start to see this other approach that is better, costs less,
> then they will start to migrate also. HTML will be around for a long
> time, but it is clearly a very worky and dependant technology.
>
> Put a check mark in your calendar and wait, watch, and see.
>
>
> "Marina" <someone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:%23darqqD$FHA.356@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> ASP.NET doesn't rely on anything more then any other web technology does.
>>
>> As far as the sandbox, it will be tight enough that you can't call SQL
>> server, web service, or anything local. I gave web services as an
>> example - but it won't be able to do plenty of other things. That is just
>> how it will be, to prevent the user from running some program that is
>> then going to run some malicious code. So, you are not going to gain
>> anything here, as you are either going to have to have a user that is
>> sophisticated enough to set security policy or is an admin - both of
>> which are highly unlikely for most users.
>>
>> This is if the user is going to have the framework installed to begin.
>> This is a big if. So what if Vista comes with it. That is meaningless.
>> What about everyone on xp, 2000, 98 (yes, that happens), linux, mac, etc?
>> That is a lot of other people who dont' have the framework by default,
>> and in some cases can't, unless somehow it gets implemented on other
>> platforms. I have not heard anything about this being a definite - and
>> even if it happens, again, people have to actually install it on their
>> machine!
>>
>> I think what you are saying sounds all nice in concept. But in practice,
>> it is just not feasible in many scenarios at this point.
>>
>> I don't understand the point of this post, really? Is it to convince us
>> of something? I mean, you can say that everyone on this newsgroup is
>> wrong and do what you feel is best, and that's that. Do you feel a need
>> to convert us all?
>>
>> How about in 2 years, we revisit this issue. My guess is, HTML will still
>> be around, ASP.NET will still be around. WinForms will be making headway
>> in very specific narrow types of situations where they are a good fit -
>> but they certainly will not replace the web.
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:u22mrjD$FHA.2708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> This seems to be a recurring theme in all the responses:
>>>
>>> "...browsers/platforms with proper care by the developer..." there is
>>> proper care and then there is jumping thru hoops, you want to avoid the
>>> hoop jumping. But beyond that, no matter how much care you put into the
>>> ASP.NET app it has several flaws:
>>>
>>> 1. it relies on a browser that can be modified by other malicious web
>>> sites
>>> 2. takes longer to develop ASP.NET interface than a windowsform app
>>> 3. slow and inefficient even if you do the work to cache everything
>>> just right, the rendering will aways be slower
>>> 4. there more things you can do in a WindowsForm interface that you
>>> either can't do in a web page or requires consider work and effort to do
>>> it
>>>
>>> If the sandbox is that tight, they probably can't do much with the PC
>>> regardless. And communicating with a Web Service is not required the
>>> developer can choose how they want to communicate -- direct to SQL
>>> servers, web services, or even local services that might be on that PC.
>>>
>>> I see Winforms doing the major amount of interface work and leaving the
>>> web pages for mostly static work -- just a way to get to the clickonce
>>> link. Ultimately the folks paying the development bill want the fastest
>>> solution possible with the features they need. ASP.NET is not that
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Marina" <someone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:uC2DfOC$FHA.3804@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> However, using winforms requires that the client has the .NET framework
>>>> installed. At this point that is a big leap to take.
>>>>
>>>> Where as an ASP.NET app can work just fine on other browsers/platforms
>>>> with proper care by the developer, there is no way a developer can make
>>>> winforms work on a platform that does not have an implementation of the
>>>> .NET framework installed.
>>>>
>>>> And yes, while the application in winforms will be secure, it may be to
>>>> secure. If the sandbox is too tight, the application may not be able
>>>> to make a web service call back to the web server for example. Now the
>>>> user has to go configure security on their machine - what average user
>>>> is going to know how to do that?
>>>>
>>>> Another issue is someone checking their email or the news from a kiosk.
>>>> Those machines are locked down pretty tight - the odds of them being
>>>> open enough to run your winforms application? I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't see winforms as a viable option for web development
>>>> for the forseeable future. But that's me, I could be way off.
>>>>
>>>> "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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Just tell me why ? so confuse...
    ... It is true that web services can sometimes be the wrong technology to ... presentation layer through to business and data layers, ... if you have a Microsoft windows ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.webservices)
  • Microsoft .NET
    ... reading up various documents that discuss - "What is Microsoft .Net" ... I'm trying to write a paper on security and software development using ... utilize connected solutions using Web services, ... language, of course, but also: ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: Microsoft Asleep At The Wheel Again: Missing the New Era of CAD
    ... I just learned Microsoft acquired Vexcel and Massive ... injection technology to inject an ad into the wallpape which is pasted to ... 3D graphics programming has been around for more than 20 ... platforms that natively support 3D vector graphics. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Siamntinel feb4
    ... With the naming of Samak Sundaravej as prime minister Monday, ... Four experts dissect the Microsoft bid for Yahoo ... It may be among one of the historical milestones in the history of technology, ... The mobile Linux company Azingo announced a new line of open source software it ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: SysInternals acquired by Microsoft
    ... be analyzed and can viewed as a direction of this technology. ... Mark has to be admired for all the effort ... and this is POWERFUL technology that Microsoft must have in its IP ... Not in my paranoid mind. ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)