>I've been hearing a lot of talk lately about rich .Net clients replacing HTML/ASP on the web for business applications. I tend to agree that a rich client is preferable when it can be used. However, wasn't this a promise of Java? It has had several years to mature, but it seems it is still used primarily on the server. Why will .Net succeed where Java failed?

Good question.

First, why did Java fail. I don't think its really safe to say that Java failed, but you still make a point. You have to peg Java in between Rich clients and Thin clients for it to make sense. On one hand, it was a platform neutral technology that couldn't take advantage of what individual platforms had to offer. On the other hand, it did provide a richer UI than the alternative (DHTML).

Windows Forms on the other hand are made for Windows. They make creating screens and forms "smarter" than the average bear, theoritically, in Gartner's view, making for a better user expeierence with less developer work.

Also, something that shoudl be considered, was the Java model was always connected, as the Java came through the browser. .NET is supposed to let for these rich user interfaces run offline or online depending on what makes the most sense at the time.

Thats just what I think that Gartner is thinking (or was paid to think). Whether it gonna end up like that or not, we'll see.