Are ASP.NET user interfaces essentially dead now?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 8, 2005.

  1. 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.
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. And what about Linux and Mac and other platforms. It is arrogant to assume
    that all people visiting ASPX pages are only Windows users.

    All technology has its place.

    Not sure what you mean by "IE client by definition is not user friendly".
    The browser has nothing to do with whether a site is friendly or not. Now
    being a website does limit its potential since it can only stream HTML and
    other browser technology, but if you program it right, then it works fine.
    I have seen some rich clients that would make Frank Lloyd Wright spin in his
    grave.


    "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    news:%23gqpHyB$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Peter Rilling, Dec 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rob R. Ainscough

    Bruce Barker Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:%23gqpHyB$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Bruce Barker, Dec 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Rob R. Ainscough

    Marina Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:%23gqpHyB$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Marina, Dec 8, 2005
    #4
  5. As I understand it .NET 2.0 is going to be available on both those
    platforms. Not being arrogant, being realistic -- unless your business
    targets that specific small group of people but it really is just a matter
    of where the money is at.

    The browser (IE or whatever you choice) is a NOT a user friendly
    environment -- some users don't even know where the "Back button" is, nor
    where the settings are in IE to enable a site to work, nor the settings to
    enable pictures to display or not. Then there is the issue of the 100's of
    activex components that get loaded and install. If you hadn't checked
    around 1 in 5 people use the web, that is pretty pathetic. The number #1
    reason they don't use it is because their affraid of spyware and viruses, #2
    is because they don't understand how to use it -- and I don't blame them.

    Sure I can code a great site but I can't manage the client's IE. I've seen
    rich clients that take minutes to load and many that don't even render
    because of client (IE) issues (either not updated, missing patches,
    corrupted activex components, etc. etc.). It maybe too late to bring back
    user confidence, but continuing with HTML rendered intefaces is definitely
    NOT the future -- it'll be a combination of HTML web site for static links
    to the real interface (.NET 2.0 windows forms apps) to do the work and do it
    faster, more secure, and with a hell of a lot less development time to
    implement.

    "Peter Rilling" <> wrote in message
    news:uI%23V89B$...
    > And what about Linux and Mac and other platforms. It is arrogant to
    > assume that all people visiting ASPX pages are only Windows users.
    >
    > All technology has its place.
    >
    > Not sure what you mean by "IE client by definition is not user friendly".
    > The browser has nothing to do with whether a site is friendly or not. Now
    > being a website does limit its potential since it can only stream HTML and
    > other browser technology, but if you program it right, then it works fine.
    > I have seen some rich clients that would make Frank Lloyd Wright spin in
    > his grave.
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 8, 2005
    #5
  6. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:OVhAIHC$...
    > thats MS's hope. there are a couple issues
    >
    > 1) no MS o/s comes with .net installed. its currently an addon (22mb
    > download)
    > 2) click once is a great way to spead viruses (as the code does not run in
    > a sandbox), and MS has not tackled the author validation issues.
    > 3) requires ms o/s (apple is still > 6% share)
    > 4) many company firewalls will block click once (maybe even smart clients)
    > 5) click once only supported by IE (<90% share).
    > 6) more personal devices with browsers
    >
    > with these issues, and ajax getting popular again, browser apps will be
    > around for a while.
    >
    > -- bruce (sqlwork.com)
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 8, 2005
    #6
  7. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:uC2DfOC$...
    > However, using winforms requires that the client has the .NET framework
    > installed. At this point that is a big leap to take.
    >
    > Where as an ASP.NET app can work just fine on other browsers/platforms
    > with proper care by the developer, there is no way a developer can make
    > winforms work on a platform that does not have an implementation of the
    > .NET framework installed.
    >
    > And yes, while the application in winforms will be secure, it may be to
    > secure. If the sandbox is too tight, the application may not be able to
    > make a web service call back to the web server for example. Now the user
    > has to go configure security on their machine - what average user is going
    > to know how to do that?
    >
    > Another issue is someone checking their email or the news from a kiosk.
    > Those machines are locked down pretty tight - the odds of them being open
    > enough to run your winforms application? I don't know.
    >
    > Personally, I don't see winforms as a viable option for web development
    > for the forseeable future. But that's me, I could be way off.
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 8, 2005
    #7
  8. How does "clickonce" solve the problem up version updates? One nice thing
    about a webserver, is the site can be updated without the user having to do
    anything.

    "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    news:u22mrjD$...
    > This seems to be a recurring theme in all the responses:
    >
    > "...browsers/platforms with proper care by the developer..." there is
    > proper care and then there is jumping thru hoops, you want to avoid the
    > hoop jumping. But beyond that, no matter how much care you put into the
    > ASP.NET app it has several flaws:
    >
    > 1. it relies on a browser that can be modified by other malicious web
    > sites
    > 2. takes longer to develop ASP.NET interface than a windowsform app
    > 3. slow and inefficient even if you do the work to cache everything just
    > right, the rendering will aways be slower
    > 4. there more things you can do in a WindowsForm interface that you
    > either can't do in a web page or requires consider work and effort to do
    > it
    >
    > If the sandbox is that tight, they probably can't do much with the PC
    > regardless. And communicating with a Web Service is not required the
    > developer can choose how they want to communicate -- direct to SQL
    > servers, web services, or even local services that might be on that PC.
    >
    > I see Winforms doing the major amount of interface work and leaving the
    > web pages for mostly static work -- just a way to get to the clickonce
    > link. Ultimately the folks paying the development bill want the fastest
    > solution possible with the features they need. ASP.NET is not that
    > solution.
    >
    > Rob.
    >
    >
    > "Marina" <> wrote in message
    > news:uC2DfOC$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Peter Rilling, Dec 8, 2005
    #8
  9. Rob R. Ainscough

    Marina Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:u22mrjD$...
    > This seems to be a recurring theme in all the responses:
    >
    > "...browsers/platforms with proper care by the developer..." there is
    > proper care and then there is jumping thru hoops, you want to avoid the
    > hoop jumping. But beyond that, no matter how much care you put into the
    > ASP.NET app it has several flaws:
    >
    > 1. it relies on a browser that can be modified by other malicious web
    > sites
    > 2. takes longer to develop ASP.NET interface than a windowsform app
    > 3. slow and inefficient even if you do the work to cache everything just
    > right, the rendering will aways be slower
    > 4. there more things you can do in a WindowsForm interface that you
    > either can't do in a web page or requires consider work and effort to do
    > it
    >
    > If the sandbox is that tight, they probably can't do much with the PC
    > regardless. And communicating with a Web Service is not required the
    > developer can choose how they want to communicate -- direct to SQL
    > servers, web services, or even local services that might be on that PC.
    >
    > I see Winforms doing the major amount of interface work and leaving the
    > web pages for mostly static work -- just a way to get to the clickonce
    > link. Ultimately the folks paying the development bill want the fastest
    > solution possible with the features they need. ASP.NET is not that
    > solution.
    >
    > Rob.
    >
    >
    > "Marina" <> wrote in message
    > news:uC2DfOC$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Marina, Dec 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Rob R. Ainscough

    Marina Guest

    Not that I agree with Rob. But, clickonce solves it in terms of the user
    receiving the latest copy next time the app is run. Because in theory the
    first thing that should happen, is the applications checks to see if there
    is a new version on the web server, and downloads it if there is. Until the
    app is run again, it doesn't really matter if the old version is still
    sitting there since it isn't being run anyway.

    "Peter Rilling" <> wrote in message
    news:%23x6NHnD$...
    > How does "clickonce" solve the problem up version updates? One nice thing
    > about a webserver, is the site can be updated without the user having to
    > do anything.
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    > news:u22mrjD$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:uC2DfOC$...
    >>> However, using winforms requires that the client has the .NET framework
    >>> installed. At this point that is a big leap to take.
    >>>
    >>> Where as an ASP.NET app can work just fine on other browsers/platforms
    >>> with proper care by the developer, there is no way a developer can make
    >>> winforms work on a platform that does not have an implementation of the
    >>> .NET framework installed.
    >>>
    >>> And yes, while the application in winforms will be secure, it may be to
    >>> secure. If the sandbox is too tight, the application may not be able to
    >>> make a web service call back to the web server for example. Now the user
    >>> has to go configure security on their machine - what average user is
    >>> going to know how to do that?
    >>>
    >>> Another issue is someone checking their email or the news from a kiosk.
    >>> Those machines are locked down pretty tight - the odds of them being
    >>> open enough to run your winforms application? I don't know.
    >>>
    >>> Personally, I don't see winforms as a viable option for web development
    >>> for the forseeable future. But that's me, I could be way off.
    >>>
    >>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Marina, Dec 8, 2005
    #10
  11. The same thing has been told 3 years ago with Flash: with the capability of
    displaying fully animated web pages with Flash, how could HTML survive?

    For some data or graphical applications, using ClickOnce might be a good
    idea (isn't it for this that it has been developed?) but there is a lot more
    about HTML and ASP.NET (PHP, ColdFusion, etc.) than just barebone data
    editing.

    --
    Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
    MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
    E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF


    "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    news:%23gqpHyB$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Sylvain Lafontaine, Dec 8, 2005
    #11
  12. > As I understand it .NET 2.0 is going to be available on both those
    > platforms. Not being arrogant, being realistic -- unless your business
    > targets that specific small group of people but it really is just a matter
    > of where the money is at.


    I doubt .NET will ever be available on Unix platform to the extent where you
    could think of stable WinForms applications. As for target groups - if you
    target the Win-based intranets then everything is beautiful. If you target a
    global web you cannot just say that Unix-users do not exists or you just do
    not want to see them. Do you imagine google as a click-once Windows desktop
    application?

    Wiktor Zychla
     
    Wiktor Zychla [C# MVP], Dec 8, 2005
    #12
  13. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:%23darqqD$...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:u22mrjD$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:uC2DfOC$...
    >>> However, using winforms requires that the client has the .NET framework
    >>> installed. At this point that is a big leap to take.
    >>>
    >>> Where as an ASP.NET app can work just fine on other browsers/platforms
    >>> with proper care by the developer, there is no way a developer can make
    >>> winforms work on a platform that does not have an implementation of the
    >>> .NET framework installed.
    >>>
    >>> And yes, while the application in winforms will be secure, it may be to
    >>> secure. If the sandbox is too tight, the application may not be able to
    >>> make a web service call back to the web server for example. Now the user
    >>> has to go configure security on their machine - what average user is
    >>> going to know how to do that?
    >>>
    >>> Another issue is someone checking their email or the news from a kiosk.
    >>> Those machines are locked down pretty tight - the odds of them being
    >>> open enough to run your winforms application? I don't know.
    >>>
    >>> Personally, I don't see winforms as a viable option for web development
    >>> for the forseeable future. But that's me, I could be way off.
    >>>
    >>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 8, 2005
    #13
  14. If you want to do any serious graphics processing, IE client and the
    numerous component downloads (like Flash) is not going to approach the power
    of DX being used in a WindowsForm -- and when Vista is released the
    graphical potential via a clickonce WindowsForm app using read 3D
    accleration via DX will simply put Flash to shame. AND this is where the
    advertisers will want to go, not some 2D flash animations and mouse hovers &
    clicks.

    I agree that HTML isn't going away overnight, but it's days are numbered and
    it's roll in the future will be a much smaller one (as it should be). Lets
    be real, we've tried to expand and extend HTML to do what it was never
    intended to do -- it has been tweaked to the point of bloated exhaustion and
    rendering nightmares, it is burdened by the drag of being platform
    independant. And is anything truely platform independant, NO -- but we seem
    to strive endlessly to try and make it so at untold cost & productivity
    where the needs of the few seem to out weight the needs of the many
    (different topic for a different day).

    Rob.

    "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
    wrote in message news:%23f2fs%23D$...
    > The same thing has been told 3 years ago with Flash: with the capability
    > of displaying fully animated web pages with Flash, how could HTML survive?
    >
    > For some data or graphical applications, using ClickOnce might be a good
    > idea (isn't it for this that it has been developed?) but there is a lot
    > more about HTML and ASP.NET (PHP, ColdFusion, etc.) than just barebone
    > data editing.
    >
    > --
    > Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
    > MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
    > E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
    >
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >> 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.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 8, 2005
    #14
  15. I would thank the day MS or other invents something much better for
    browsers.
    Like a windows system in browser with hyperlink navigating and still
    considered thin client.
    Better develop support.
    Not the nonsense html stuff we have now.
    I guess java goes a bit in that direction, well i don't know much about that
    though.



    "Rob R. Ainscough" <> schreef in bericht
    news:%23RrinXE$...
    > If you want to do any serious graphics processing, IE client and the
    > numerous component downloads (like Flash) is not going to approach the
    > power of DX being used in a WindowsForm -- and when Vista is released the
    > graphical potential via a clickonce WindowsForm app using read 3D
    > accleration via DX will simply put Flash to shame. AND this is where the
    > advertisers will want to go, not some 2D flash animations and mouse hovers
    > & clicks.
    >
    > I agree that HTML isn't going away overnight, but it's days are numbered
    > and it's roll in the future will be a much smaller one (as it should be).
    > Lets be real, we've tried to expand and extend HTML to do what it was
    > never intended to do -- it has been tweaked to the point of bloated
    > exhaustion and rendering nightmares, it is burdened by the drag of being
    > platform independant. And is anything truely platform independant, NO --
    > but we seem to strive endlessly to try and make it so at untold cost &
    > productivity where the needs of the few seem to out weight the needs of
    > the many (different topic for a different day).
    >
    > Rob.
    >
    > "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
    > wrote in message news:%23f2fs%23D$...
    >> The same thing has been told 3 years ago with Flash: with the capability
    >> of displaying fully animated web pages with Flash, how could HTML
    >> survive?
    >>
    >> For some data or graphical applications, using ClickOnce might be a good
    >> idea (isn't it for this that it has been developed?) but there is a lot
    >> more about HTML and ASP.NET (PHP, ColdFusion, etc.) than just barebone
    >> data editing.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
    >> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
    >> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
    >>
    >>
    >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Edwin Knoppert, Dec 8, 2005
    #15
  16. Rob R. Ainscough

    Bruce Barker Guest

    number 4 is relevent - a firewall can detect applet downloads and block
    (typically you strip the tag). as click once installs the app on the hard
    drive and it runs in the open sandbox its as dangerous as active/x.

    vista will allow companies block click once, except from trusted (internal)
    sites.

    microsoft has never suggested .net support for any o/s other than windows.
    there is an educational version for another o/s, but you are not allowed to
    write commerical software for it.




    -- bruce (sqlwork.com)




    "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    news:uJsGvaD$...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:OVhAIHC$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Bruce Barker, Dec 9, 2005
    #16
  17. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:O61zmQE$...
    > At some point a port has to be open if the end user wants contact with the
    > outside world. If the user is VPN then no issues at all.
    >
    > I think my statement is about the future, not Today -- I'm more interested
    > in the future as today has got user acceptance problems which I assume you
    > don't believe -- however the statistic are available on the web if you
    > want to see why people aren't using IE (of any flavor) and jumping on the
    > web. Something needs to be done and keep a concept/technology like and IE
    > client as the only way to do it is not good for anyone. The future will
    > be a hybrid of the two IMHO.
    >
    > It is feasible today and being used today -- I'm not sure why you think
    > people are OK with having a IE Client but NOT ok with have .NET framework?
    > Dialup download might be a little painful, but not unreasonable at 22
    > MB -- certainly no more unreasonable than SP2 or the numerous other
    > software patches (on any platform).
    >
    > I agree in 2 years HTML will still be around so will ASP.NET, but those
    > technologies will become redundant and as those spending the money on
    > development start to see this other approach that is better, costs less,
    > then they will start to migrate also. HTML will be around for a long
    > time, but it is clearly a very worky and dependant technology.
    >
    > Put a check mark in your calendar and wait, watch, and see.
    >
    >
    > "Marina" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23darqqD$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:u22mrjD$...
    >>> This seems to be a recurring theme in all the responses:
    >>>
    >>> "...browsers/platforms with proper care by the developer..." there is
    >>> proper care and then there is jumping thru hoops, you want to avoid the
    >>> hoop jumping. But beyond that, no matter how much care you put into the
    >>> ASP.NET app it has several flaws:
    >>>
    >>> 1. it relies on a browser that can be modified by other malicious web
    >>> sites
    >>> 2. takes longer to develop ASP.NET interface than a windowsform app
    >>> 3. slow and inefficient even if you do the work to cache everything
    >>> just right, the rendering will aways be slower
    >>> 4. there more things you can do in a WindowsForm interface that you
    >>> either can't do in a web page or requires consider work and effort to do
    >>> it
    >>>
    >>> If the sandbox is that tight, they probably can't do much with the PC
    >>> regardless. And communicating with a Web Service is not required the
    >>> developer can choose how they want to communicate -- direct to SQL
    >>> servers, web services, or even local services that might be on that PC.
    >>>
    >>> I see Winforms doing the major amount of interface work and leaving the
    >>> web pages for mostly static work -- just a way to get to the clickonce
    >>> link. Ultimately the folks paying the development bill want the fastest
    >>> solution possible with the features they need. ASP.NET is not that
    >>> solution.
    >>>
    >>> Rob.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Marina" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:uC2DfOC$...
    >>>> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Kevin Spencer, Dec 9, 2005
    #17
  18. Rob R. Ainscough

    Patrice Guest

    Not exactly but an interesting move is that Vista allows to descibe a
    Windows UI using XML markup. As such you can have a web site serving this
    markup and the user see a Windows UI.
    Also it's likely that the web will progress one day (for example through
    XForms). I'm optimist by nature as you see...

    Really depends what we are doing but for maintream modules having a web
    application is IMO still cleaner than having a buch of local applications,
    it would be likely overkill. We do have also local applications when the
    requirements are heavy regarding the UI...

    --
    Patrice

    "Rob R. Ainscough" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:%23gqpHyB$...
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Patrice, Dec 9, 2005
    #18
  19. Google doesn't really have much of an interface? Even if .NET 2.0 never
    appears for Unix -- which I believe it will give the resource tossed into
    this by Microsoft -- I thought Unix had Windows emulators?

    But like I said, the more complex interface the less the fit to a IE type
    client -- the Global case is no different, Windows is everywhere and is
    dominant, that's why uncle Bill has a global size wallet.



    "Wiktor Zychla [C# MVP]" <> wrote in
    message news:OTDIfQE$...
    >> As I understand it .NET 2.0 is going to be available on both those
    >> platforms. Not being arrogant, being realistic -- unless your business
    >> targets that specific small group of people but it really is just a
    >> matter of where the money is at.

    >
    > I doubt .NET will ever be available on Unix platform to the extent where
    > you could think of stable WinForms applications. As for target groups - if
    > you target the Win-based intranets then everything is beautiful. If you
    > target a global web you cannot just say that Unix-users do not exists or
    > you just do not want to see them. Do you imagine google as a click-once
    > Windows desktop application?
    >
    > Wiktor Zychla
    >
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 9, 2005
    #19
  20. I didn't say that, it is removing some of the load from one dated and over
    extended technology into another that is more suited at the task.

    And Microsoft soft originally said VB6 would migrate to .NET 100% -- and
    they changed their minds later on.

    The goal is to use IE as little as possible and be more secure -- bring IE
    back inline with its roots and original intent is a good thing.

    But think about the interface technology and the end user -- I can't see
    ASP.NET, HTML, etc. etc. surviving -- they invented Cache management, place
    more things for the developer to think about that don't directly apply to
    working complex solutions.

    Besides why use up server bandwidth and processor/memory resources when you
    have a client with the power and resources to do the interface processing?
    Sending a ton of the same rendering information back and forth -- this is a
    good thing? No it's poor way to accomplish a task and uses up precious
    bandwidth. The entire concept is bad.

    I just finish discussing clickonce technology with several large and small
    clients and they instantly WANT IT NOW! I don't think you realize the
    frustrate end users go thru with their client browsers -- they hate it and
    IT departs hate the support they have to perform on it -- give IT a choice
    of a firewall setting vs. supporting a client browser, they opt for the
    firewall setting every time -- life would be so much simpler.

    But you point the exact flaw, XAML, AJAX, more and more and more of the
    same -- lets just load up the server with as many services as possible til
    64GB of memory and 4 64bit processors just isn't enough for the server to
    even boot.

    ClickOnce is a lot more than pushing out the developer's favorite tool of
    the day -- hey I'm in a Java mood today lets manage mgmt to convert over to
    Java, oh now I'm in a ASP.NET mood, I'm bored now lets try Indigo, how about
    XAML, everything has to be SOAP...it is getting silly. End result is a
    business stuck with maintaining something that is now "out of fashion".



    "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    news:Omc0k9M$...
    > It is interesting to me that, when Microsoft adds another technology to
    > the toolbox, so many people seem to think that it is somehow supplanting
    > or replacing some other technology, or making it obsolete. I don't see how
    > anyone can assume that ClickOnce is going to replace ASP.Net, or make web
    > applications obsolete. It is simply another tool in the toolbox. No doubt
    > it will be found useful for many situations, and that it will replace
    > ASP.Net solutions in a number of instances. But from what I've read, even
    > from Microsoft, it is not expected to supplant ASP.Net, or in any way make
    > web applications go the way of the dinosaur. In fact, ClickOnce is just
    > one of many emerging Microsoft technologies that, rather than limit us,
    > provide us with more choices. It provides us with the ability to create
    > solutions that are more appropriate to the given requirements. Among these
    > solutions, some will be ASP.Net, some will be ClickOnce, some will be Web
    > Services, some with be Indigo, some will be XAML, etc., etc.
    >
    > Think of it this way. There is a peg board out there of requirements. Some
    > of the holes are square. Some are round. Some are trapezoid. Some are
    > oval. Now, ASP.Net is like a round peg. We have had to shave our ASP.Net
    > pegs a bit to get them to fit into the oval holes. Now, Microsoft has
    > created an oval peg. I don't think it would fit well in the round holes.
    > But it is certainly easier to fit it into the oval ones.
    >
    > --
    > HTH,
    >
    > Kevin Spencer
    > Microsoft MVP
    > .Net Developer
    > You can lead a fish to a bicycle,
    > but you can't make it stink.
    >
    > "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    > news:O61zmQE$...
    >> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%23darqqD$...
    >>> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:u22mrjD$...
    >>>> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:uC2DfOC$...
    >>>>> However, using winforms requires that the client has the .NET
    >>>>> framework installed. At this point that is a big leap to take.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Where as an ASP.NET app can work just fine on other browsers/platforms
    >>>>> with proper care by the developer, there is no way a developer can
    >>>>> make winforms work on a platform that does not have an implementation
    >>>>> of the .NET framework installed.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And yes, while the application in winforms will be secure, it may be
    >>>>> to secure. If the sandbox is too tight, the application may not be
    >>>>> able to make a web service call back to the web server for example.
    >>>>> Now the user has to go configure security on their machine - what
    >>>>> average user is going to know how to do that?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Another issue is someone checking their email or the news from a
    >>>>> kiosk. Those machines are locked down pretty tight - the odds of them
    >>>>> being open enough to run your winforms application? I don't know.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Personally, I don't see winforms as a viable option for web
    >>>>> development for the forseeable future. But that's me, I could be way
    >>>>> off.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:%23gqpHyB$...
    >>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Rob R. Ainscough, Dec 9, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Flare
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    484
    William F. Robertson, Jr.
    Sep 21, 2004
  2. Michael Sparks
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    330
  3. $Need C Programmer$

    Email NOW $$ HIGH $$ C Programmer WANTED NOW!!

    $Need C Programmer$, Aug 2, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    716
    Christopher Benson-Manica
    Aug 2, 2006
  4. Trans

    rdoc -x essentially useless

    Trans, Jun 18, 2007, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    129
    Trans
    Jun 19, 2007
  5. Peng Yu
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    283
    Peter J. Holzer
    Jun 12, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page