>Bob,
>
>I respectfully disagree. Thin client technology is here to stay and only getting more popular as HTML and browser scripting technologies advance. I believe that most business users embrace the browser front-end because it's something they are already familiar with and it gives them an enjoyable user experience.
>
>In addition, the benefits of deploying a web app with the UI completely browser based is it gives you a potentially unlimited user base, platform independence and no installation and configuration/upgrade woes.
>
>HTML forms and client and server side scripting have brought web applications to a new level and we no longer have to settle for the lame looking anemic web form with the sparse interface and lonely submit button. My latest web app has dynamic input controls that change from row to row according to the data and a very rich UI. What's more, it's easy for users to learn and train on because they already know how a browser interface works.
>
>There are countless other benefits to developing a web solution with a browser front-end like integration with other web apps using hyperlinks, graphics and style sheets for a more attractive app and so on. And what about platform independence? That's a bigee too. With a fat client you have to write a different EXE for every platform (Windows, Macintosh, LINUX, UNIX etc.)
>
>I used to resist the browser front end concept as well until I saw the light. Now I'll never go back to building fat client apps regardless of whether or not they use HTTP for data transmission. It just doesn't make sense to me.
>
>Regards,
>
>-JT

I have to concur. I think there is an overall resistance to desktop applications. And, despite the coming version releases for VFP, I beleive MS is going to kill the product, if it isn't dead already. At least they did it nicely. There is a relatively smooth transition from VFP to SQL 2000. Insofar as VB is concerned, were all on a level playing field with the advent of .NET