Converting from Access to ASP.NET (Access vs ASP.NET)

[kmeezy]

I've read a lot in these forums regarding Access vs. .NET and would
like to thank all of those for the info provided. I'm posting again
however to get opinions on my specific situation.

So, I have a couple of clients running an Access front end on top of
SQL Server 2005. They want me to update their apps and write new code.
These are small, but successful businesses with about 20-40 employees
each in the financial profession.

Ok, so I KNOW not to diss Access, especially in this forum I know
that using Access as a front end can continue to work for
them...however, if I get as proficient in ASP.NET wouldn't this be a
better solution for my small business clients? Ok, so here are my
specifics...

1) It's generally accepted that irregardless of the platform, a program
is only as good as its programmer. So, let's assume that I'm equally
versed in MS Access and ASP.Net--I don't want this to turn into a
debate over which technology is better as I feel that both kick
arse--rather, if ASP could be better for my specific clients.

2) I'm very comfortable with HTML and web design.

3) If I redo the Access front end using ASP.NET here are what I see as
advantages:

3a. No applications to deploy every time an update is made!

3b. Remote users can simply log into the web interface from home or
elsewhere instead of having to use a VPN connection using the Access
front end to connect to the server.

3c. Moving to the .NET platform (off of Access/VB6) for increased
functionality. And also setting my clients up so that their systems are
more up to date so that it's easier to find a replacement for me if I
ever leave the job??? big question marks here. really what I'm saying
is, since .NET is the new standard, looking forward, from an employer
point of view is it better to have an app built on .NET so that there's
more capable programmers in the job market? like i said, big question
mark

3d. Please don't hate me for this reality check...but I must ask. Our
brothers and sisters offshore (India, Pakistan, Eastern Europe, etc.)
are slowly taking programming out of our hands. I figure after I get
really good at programming ASP.NET web pages that I can farm out some
of the tasks to India or elsewhere. This seems much easier to do if the
programs are web based since remote administration is pretty much the
norm nowadays. Programming in Access with remote partners just seems
harder to me. I dunno know though, what do you (the experts) think?

Thanks for all your responses. Again, I don't want to start a war here
over which app is better as either one kicks arse for small business.
But it seems that the new free VS.NET studio makes it easier to develop
ASP rapidly which is why Access is so great.

Thanks!
kmeezy

 

[Albert D.Kallal]

3a. No applications to deploy every time an update is made!

no question about it. The centralized nature of a web application is really
nice.

However, if they don't have a web connection, then their application can't
run
locally. We run Excel locally, we run Simply Accounting locally, and we
usually run our applications written in ms-access this way also.

So, it really is a question of what type of user you have.
For a single user application, it don't
make sense to write a web based system.

Further, a web based user interface is not nearly as fast or responsive as
a desktop application. This is
much why you don't see spreadsheets, and even word processing done via the
web. Note that however, many "casual" users do use web based mail, and its
advantages are that of not having to install the applications.

So, a web based appcation is nice from a install/distribution point of view,
but from a performance and responsive point of view, a desktop application
still runs circles around a web based one. Further, building the web based
application IS MUCH MORE WORK!!!. So, sure...a web based application is
great,
but at what cost?

If your current applications are multi-user, and the employers need those
applications
anywhere, anytime, then ms-access likely was not the best choice in the
first place.
However, most employees when they leave work do not need, nor even want
to be able to use that cool job costing system you wrote in ms-access.
Further,
for those exceptional cases, you can use remote technologies such as windows
terminal services. It don't make sense to compliry re-write and change a
whole application because of one user, or one case of needing to use the
application
while at home, or on the road (we have good solutions for that now).

3b. Remote users can simply log into the web interface from home or
elsewhere instead of having to use a VPN connection using the Access
front end to connect to the server.

Are you talking about sql server here? (you can't use a vpn and ms-access
as a file share anyway - I explain why in the following article).
http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal//Wan/Wans.html


Actually, you can use a SSL connection to sql server. So, as long as they
have your software installed, connecting via the web browser, or using
your ms-access software to connect to sql server at work is not going
to be a problem at all. The only advantage of the web appcation in this
case is that you don't have to install software.

3c. Moving to the .NET platform (off of Access/VB6) for increased
functionality.

It you are talking about a web based interface, then it going to be VERY
hard to argue that you have increased functionality...in fact, you likely
have
*less* functionally from a UI point of view. I mean, how are you going
to do a email, or work merge with a web based system? However, without
question,
learning to use the .net environment is a good carrier move.

Programming in Access with remote partners just seems
harder to me. I dunno know though, what do you (the experts) think?

If your application requites more then one developer, then sure, technology
such
as .net do allow more collaboration (just the fact of a OO approach in the
design of the appcation does cater to more of a multi-developer approach).

However, if your applications don't need a team of developers now, then
these
advantages will NOT BE realized. This is much like using a car, or a large
truck to deliver a letter. You don't need your truck drivers license to
deliver a
letter, or small package. However, if you are delivering huge steam boilers
to
buildings, then you need big trucks. So, the size of the project, and number
of
developers on your team is going to influence this decision.

This is really a question of the right tool for the right job. You don't use
ms-access to write a Pac-man game, nor is it any use for a large web
deployed database. However, for a few users who need a custom
business application, the cost and ease of deployment can't be beat.

So, that one person developing in
ms-access may very well need to become 3 or more people if you change
technologies
and the way you deploy your software. To go full web means your costs will
be MUCH higher, and
your customer will have to foot that bill. If a solution that costs $8000 in
ms-access will now likely cost $25,000-$40,000. That company will have
to foot that bill. And, if they are wiling to pay those amounts for a
solution now, then you have to ask why don't they pay that now?

So, ms-access allows you to create applications at MUCH lower costs. (this
is why ms-access
is wildly popular for small business solutions...they can afford it!!).

If a company can afford a $40,000 solution in place of a $6000 ms-access
solution, then perhaps they
should spend the $40,000

If you change technologies, you will also have to find a client who is
willing to pay that extra amount for the solution.

This cost issue is only one that you and your clients can only answer...

I talk about ms-access and consulting here...and while that article is 5
years old...little has changed...

http://www.members.shaw.ca/AlbertKallal/Articles/fog0000000004.html