When to pick ASP.Net, when to pick desktop

What are the reasons you would decide to do a dot net app in the
Windows desk top mode, rather than in ASP.Net? I am being asked to
make a recomendation and I can not think of any reason to go with desk
top, even for something that is only going to run on one desk top
computer at a time.

My thinking is that with Win XP you can always use IIS and run the app
on your desktop. If you ever need to migrate to a web app it will be
so much easier if you start out with ASP.Net, and in dot net it doesn't
take any longer to develop in ASP.Net.

So those are my thoughts but I am not an experience dot net developer,
so tell me what I am missing.

What do you have more experience with?

In my experience you should use what the language was designed for, ASP.NET for web-applications/websites and VB.NET, C# for Windows Applications for desktop applications.

ASP.Net is used for web-based websites and require more things to get it working correctly and costs are more because you need a domain and a server to run.

VB.NET or C# Windows Applications take less overhead in the money because they just need the .NET framework to run on a windows computer.

The scope and the overall purpose to solve should also help drive which to choose.

"ASP.Net is used for web-based websites and require more things to get it working correctly and costs are more because you need a domain and a server to run."

If you have XP you don't need a domain or server. XP has IIS built into it and you can just run ASP.Net that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tc101

"ASP.Net is used for web-based websites and require more things to get it working correctly and costs are more because you need a domain and a server to run."

If you have XP you don't need a domain or server. XP has IIS built into it and you can just run ASP.Net that way.

---

Good Point...

Windows apps have easier access to the system than Web apps do. Many companies wouldn't touch an application that had to run in a browser if they didn't want it to run off a Web server. Can you imagine if Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop, etc. had to run in a browser?

My response is here under the same topic thread:
Link
Additional Comments..
IIS is built in, but by default not on, and most non web developers will not turn it on, and don't want something sucking up CPU cycles if they are not going to use it, and the common user does not like or does not know how to turn this feature on. Not to mention it is easier to control program flow and looks of a program in a windows app vs a website.

Every product type has certain things people are willing to accept and put up with. But I wouldnt want to have to turn on IIS so I can use Quicken though.. etc..


jmcilhinney:
From what I have "heard" Microsoft plans on doing just that, creating web-based version of their main apps with the intent that you could edit docs stored on their (or other peoples) server farms.

Microsoft already has the web based lite versions of its Office products on the web but I'm not sure its they are public yet.

Running a website off of a workstation running XP pro is a joke, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillBoeBaggins

jmcilhinney:
From what I have "heard" Microsoft plans on doing just that, creating web-based version of their main apps with the intent that you could edit docs stored on their (or other peoples) server farms.

---

To provide a Web-based alternative is one thing, but it will never (at least not any time soon, or probably ever) be as functional as, or replace, the desktop version of MS Office.

Web based solutions have their place and need just as much as desktop based solutions. When to use which depends on the project. You use the best tool for that particular job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

To provide a Web-based alternative is one thing, but it will never (at least not any time soon, or probably ever) be as functional as, or replace, the desktop version of MS Office.

---

Well to be honest, I can see this as being the new frontier for MS Office products, I think it will be years but I think it will be the new technology trendline. If not at the least it gives someone the power to work on remote copies of their documents easily through the interface. Though someone could just create a Share on a server with read/write access and map it.. but it was a speculation comment not a "This will happen thing" :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog

Running a website off of a workstation running XP pro is a joke, right?

---

My take on what he is saying is that it is an application using a webbased solution, but not for the purpose of being Online.

Anybody remember when Google came out with the announcement of Open Office on their site? Then MS replied with their own Office Onlline doing shared workspacecs, lite versions of Office apps, etc?

Basically, Web apps exist for convenience. If you don't need that convenience then there's no reason to create a Web app. They're great for what they're intended to do but they do make you jump through some hoops to do things that are easy in WinForms apps, basically because Web apps require tighter security.

Web apps are not just to make you jump through hoops. They are much more scaleable and can be accessed all around the world. Very valuable in a business WAN scenerio with offices all over. A winforms app is not and would require some form of remote desktop or terminal server support in order to come anywhere close.

I didn't mean that Web apps are intended to make you jump through hoops. I meant that they do make you jump through some hoops because of the tighter security involved. I'm well aware that Web apps do have many advantages and I agree that they are an excellent choice where those advantages are desirable. Where those features of Web apps do not offer a specific advantage, however, there is no point creating and using a Web app. I've offered some of my clients a Web-based solution on occasions and none of them have accepted because they could not see an advantage. None of them have suffered as a result as far as I'm aware, and nor have I as the developer (except that I still have b*gger all experience with ASP.NET as a result :().

True, but as such is the enviroment of a desktop app that uses a web service to connect to a central database for ex. You are still vulnerable to the same kinds of threads as a web based solution. Now if you had a intranet web based solution then you can ease up on the security as most is taken care of being separated from the internet and users having to authenticate on the network even before getting in. Still no matter which, "use the best tool for each individual job". :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

I've offered some of my clients a Web-based solution on occasions and none of them have accepted because they could not see an advantage.

---

You should pimp it more then. Nearly all of my projects are web based. :) But, most of them are collaborative tools, which lend themselves particularly well to a web-based solution.

Accessing a database server over the 'Net can have more security issues than making a web service for it. Web services have a lot of security features such as SSL (TLS) encryption which are easy to take advantage of. I would only directly access a database server through something like a SSH tunnel or VPN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Anybody remember when Google came out with the announcement of Open Office on their site? Then MS replied with their own Office Onlline doing shared workspacecs, lite versions of Office apps, etc?

---

Yeah and they both flopped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobDog888

Running a website off of a workstation running XP pro is a joke, right?

---

My first thought exactly since XP is not a server OS, at best only a website development OS.

TC101:
Consider the licensing cost of Windows 2003 Server versus the one time cost of an XP installation and that will probably be enough to pick a fat app version. I write ASP.NET applications all day long, and really, as long as you have a good business / data framework, and keep upgrading to a website solution a future option in your design, write it as a fat app.

OF course, you never told us what the specifications / requirements were... so there's your answer.

Would everyone agree
1) Win apps are easier to develop, and more robust.
2) Web apps are easier to deploy, and can be used across multiple OS.

write it as a fat app.

How do you define fat app? Is that the same as fat client?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wild_bill

Would everyone agree
1) Win apps are easier to develop, and more robust.
2) Web apps are easier to deploy, and can be used across multiple OS.

---

I would, but it's far more fun to waffle verbosely. ;) Having said that, I do have the aforementioned lack of experience with Web apps so maybe they're just harder to develop for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tc101

How do you define fat app? Is that the same as fat client?

---

"Fat" means the application is stored and primarily processed locally, "thin" means the app is stored and primarily processed remotely. The word that comes after is usually "client" but is somewhat arbitrary because a "fat client" often isn't a client at all.

I had a hard time understanding if the poster was thinking of using XP as a webserver for whoever to access? Or if they were planning on installing IIS and the website at each XP Pro workstation?

Neither of them are valid solutions... but I couldn't tell what he was thinking...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

My first thought exactly since XP is not a server OS, at best only a website development OS.

TC101:
Consider the licensing cost of Windows 2003 Server versus the one time cost of an XP installation and that will probably be enough to pick a fat app version. I write ASP.NET applications all day long, and really, as long as you have a good business / data framework, and keep upgrading to a website solution a future option in your design, write it as a fat app.

OF course, you never told us what the specifications / requirements were... so there's your answer.

---

Well I know Server OS' are expensive but there are Free web hosts out there that can provide a high end server host with many tools and utilities. Much more better then hosting it on a xp workstation that struggles to serve pages over a DSL line. I just cant stand to wait for a site to load if it takes more then a few seconds. If it does you can usually envision some web developer running the site on their own box from out of their bedroom. :D

There are lots of limitations in IIS 5.1 (XP Pro version) versus IIS 5.0 and IIS 6.0

IIS 5.1 is supposed to be for development purposes and nothing more. It's is limited to 10 concurrent connections so you can't really run it like a reliable web server...

I'm learning a lot here. It sounds like we need to make a decission between desktop (client) ap or server (asp.net) ap based on our current requirements.
Right now we only need a desktop ap, but in a year or 2 may need to make it a server ap. I was trying to do things so the transition would not be a total rewrite, but it looks like my solution was not a good one.

Well I don't know what the requirements are for the app you are building... but if you structure things correctly, it can assist you in creating both.

If you seperate all your programs logic away from the user interface, and put it in its own class library dll, you could then build a GUI in either windows forms, or asp.net web forms, and they both could access the same DLL.

I use this method now for our customer database. In the office we use a windows app, but when our customers go to their online account on our website, they access their info via an ASP.NET website.

Both apps use the exact same DLL which handles all the actual processing, like all the database interactions, etc... and just holds easily creatable objects so I don't have to duplicate my code all over the place to make both apps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

Windows apps have easier access to the system than Web apps do. Many companies wouldn't touch an application that had to run in a browser if they didn't want it to run off a Web server. Can you imagine if Microsoft Word, Adobe Photoshop, etc. had to run in a browser?

---

Yes it would be an incredible tool called writely http://docs.google.com/

Sure google docs and spreadsheets, and similar apps are great web 2.0 ajax enabled applications.. but they don't even come remotely close to supporting the feature set found in the full installed version of Microsoft Office...

If you want to write a quick document, sure it gets the job done.. but if you want to do something like mail merge with a database (to name just one example)... then what do you do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

Sure google docs and spreadsheets, and similar apps are great web 2.0 ajax enabled applications.. but they don't even come remotely close to supporting the feature set found in the full installed version of Microsoft Office...

If you want to write a quick document, sure it gets the job done.. but if you want to do something like mail merge with a database (to name just one example)... then what do you do?

---

The difference being is with office you spend money with google docs you dont. I agree you cannot replace one with the other I was just making a comment about how well written it is. To be able to not postback on some of that stuff is really difficult, Im giving them props for that.

:thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaldocoder

The difference being is with office you spend money with google docs you dont. I agree you cannot replace one with the other I was just making a comment about how well written it is. To be able to not postback on some of that stuff is really difficult, Im giving them props for that.

:thumb:

---

well it's written using AJAX technology, which was designed to prevent the need for postbacks just to update small parts of a page.

It's also google, and sure they deserve props, but come on.. they are google.. the quality of their programming staff is as good (if not better) than most the major software companies...

I think chaldcoder has pretty much summed up the argument. You can build some very useful Web apps and they make many tasks much easier, but you sacrifice functionality as a result. The fact that Google offers a free service is irrelevant to how useful the application is. OpenOffice is also free and I'm guessing offers more functionality than the Google service. Web technologies are great and improving all the time, but because of the nature of the Internet there are always going to be things that are more difficult to achieve or just plain impossible with a Web app. Sure you can set up security to your liking in an Intranet as Rob suggested, but why would you bother doing that on a single machine when you don't get the benefits that a Web app provides? A Web app installed on and run on a single machine is pointless from the point of view that it doesn't offer any of the benefits of a truly Web-deployed app, but it does offer all the limitations. That is what the OP is talking about as far as I can tell: installing a Web application on your own system for your own exclusive use.

No John, as far as having a web app on an intranet you do get the scaleablility, benefits and it is only installed on the server. Its most secure since they have to authenticate in order to get into the server desktop where you can have a GPO to limit theeir activity to just the one webapp if you want.

Rob, you're missing my point. I've said several times that Web apps are a good thing when they're used on the Web, or a mini-Web like an Intranet. I fully agree that you get benefits from using them and using them in that type of situation is a good idea. The OP is talking about making ALL applications Web applications. What I'm saying is that if you want to distribute an application to a single user for their own exclusive use then forcing them to run a Web server on their local machine to run the app with less functionality than they could get from a Windows Forms app is a bad idea. If the app is to be stored on a central server and accessed by multiple users then Web apps provide advantages. If the app is to be stored on the local system and used exclusively by the local user then they don't. That's what I'm saying.

Intranet thin-client applications are easier to maintain than multi-user fat client apps. Most businesses either run web servers anyway or can set up IIS with a few clicks. It's not hard.

I agree, a single-user web app would be stupid.

Well yes, desktop or fat client app is mainly good for just that, desktop processing. Now you can have a multiuser fat app with a db backend and it will not be a bad thing but it has its issues too.

Flash applications are a good choice too.

They are as rich as a fat GUI thanks to running in Flash, and are still centralized by existing on web server.

http://www.laszlosystems.com/showcase/liveapplications

I know security has been mentioned earlier in this post, but I wanted to add that using integrated windows security (impersonating) over a thin client is a huge PIA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kleinma

well it's written using AJAX technology, which was designed to prevent the need for postbacks just to update small parts of a page.

It's also google, and sure they deserve props, but come on.. they are google.. the quality of their programming staff is as good (if not better) than most the major software companies...

---

Yeah, mainly due to the fact that they have snagged all the top open source programmers :thumb:

* Thinks how awesome it would be to say you work for google... *

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freefall

Yeah, mainly due to the fact that they have snagged all the top open source programmers :thumb:

* Thinks how awesome it would be to say you work for google... *

---

I bet the janitors there are even proud to say they work for google :bigyello: