"disconnected use"
Even that's coming under attack with things like Google Gears (https://gears.google.com/)
The interesting thing I find about Google Gears is that, once a page has been downloaded and saved, there is no different way of navigating to it when off-line. You don't then have to switch to finding it in the start menu or anything. It's still in exactly the same place - just type the URL.

The comparison used (getting directions) is interesting because, unlike a lot of web innovations that are just much easier to do with menus and buttons etc., it is still very simple to do using existing desktop toolkits.

"Streets and Trips will still be helpful in one very specific situation: disconnected use with a laptop and/or a GPS." - who knows, with Google Gears I imagine even this statement will become less true - perhaps we're not quite at the stage where the whole world street map is going to be cached offline but we are getting there.

Good article, and good points raised that desktop app developers would do well to bear in mind... bring on Apollo/Gears :)

I ran into this a couple of weeks ago while travelling with my laptop, Streets and Trips 2007, and a GPS receiver. My poor girlfriend was absolutely befuddled by S&T and when I tried to help her I realized I didn't understand what it wanted either. It's needlessly complex and obtuse to use. I was really shocked at just how obnoxious it was.

The problem with Google Gears and disconnected use is that there's no way it could store all the maps to everywhere on your PC. You still would have to access the 'net to fetch the maps, or maybe pre-load them before leaving.

I still find that desktop apps are much more useful in most situations. For example, office suit is much better (being MS Office or Open Office) than any web counterpart. They offer many more features and are not susceptible to most web related issues (although they have their own).

But it is true that most desktop apps can learn a lot from the streamlined web interface. I find that google's greatest advantage is the easy of use (a consecuence of the streamlined interface).

As a matter of fact, I would love to see a book about these kinds of interfaces (design, not implementation). Does anyone knows about one??

"Streets and Trips is free to harness the complete power of the desktop PC" Not 100% true.

Most people would complain if everytime they ran S&T their computer they were unable to run anything due to it being a process hog. Whereas GM harnesses the much bigger processor resource of a data centre for the grunt work and all you PC has to do is display it. Oh, and use a lot more of your broadband (watch out for those "Fair usage" limits).

Does that 3 seconds include opening your browser?

Was this really published June 7 or is there a bug in your CMS?

If I'm disconnected I just go to sleep anyway.

Interesting graphics: both the pushpin and Google's arrowhead point to the middle of the road. I don't know about other people, but when I want to go somewhere it is pretty important to know on which side of the street it is.

Microsoft's Live Maps uses Autoroute's/Streets and Trips' routing engine. It's much better at finding a good route (at least in the UK). Google still tries to route via M4/M25/M1 if travelling from Maidenhead to Northampton.

"But Streets and Trips seems to be completely stuck in the old world mentality of toolbars, menus, and right-clicking."

Erm, but that screen shot of GM shows toolbars and that 'more' bit is prolly a menu, the only thing that GM lacks is right-clicking, and Apple has had that 'advantage' for quite some time.

As a tangent, am I the only one who thinks all of this 'rethinking' of the WIMP paradigm has produced alot of user interfaces that are fairly similar to the user interfaces that are used in games?
What I find striking is the usage of multiple 'pages' to represent different aspects of the domain (as in 'Search Results' & 'My Maps'), games are rife with these type of views.

Hey there,

and even if you don't have your laptop with you, you can still use Google Maps on your Java ME enabled phone.

Regards, David

One feature that I really use a lot in google maps is "my maps" where I can store my points of interest and access them wherever I am.

Oh yes, the answer to your question: Internet killed the desktop application!

> Does that 3 seconds include opening your browser?
Do you close your browser ever? :)

hgs - I would assume that he just looked up the address and it marked it. It's more trouble than it's worth to get the software to understand what end of the road the numbers start at, the size of each house on the road and all the oddities in order for it to even mark which side of the road that it's on. If you want, you can move the pushpin manually to better reflect the exact location.

Thus proving that a bad interface is a bad interface ?

The Google Maps interface does not have to be good and the Streets and Trips interface does not have to be bad, it's just good design on Google's part and lazyness on the part of Microsoft?

I must say I have used google maps (and similar) on the web and used desktop mapping apps on my PC, but have not even heard of Streets and Trips? I suspect it is the usual "why should I buy a limited desktop app when I can use the up to date online version for free?"

> As a tangent, am I the only one who thinks all of this 'rethinking' of the WIMP paradigm has produced alot of user interfaces that are fairly similar to the user interfaces that are used in games?

True. While regular desktop and office applications focus on functionality and then try to make it all accessible to user, important side of games design is easy and pleasant interface, because games must be fun, bring pleasure and relaxation.
To be fair, I've seen both elegant applications and ugly games. But they are quite rare.

But mapquest's interface is somehow good because it is on the web? Obviously not. There were plenty of web mapping applications online before google maps came out.

A good interface is a good interface and a bad one is a bad one. Google happened to make a good one for the web, because google tends toward good interfaces and they make stuff for the web. microsoft did the opposite, because that's what they tend to do.

A good web app will be better than a bad desktop app, but a good desktop app should almost always be better than a good web app. There question is is there a good desktop app available to solve the problem :(

The only stand out feature in S&T for me is "avoid area". When you use the selector tool you can make a square, r-click and choose avoid area. Good for when you want to avoid a busy highway or when it tries to take you too directly to your destination (e.g., going through rurual roads instead of highways)

I bet gmaps could easily do that though :)

Hmm, Google doesn't create the best GUI's, but man, that Street & Trips app doesn't look like its interface has been updated since Windows 95.

If you want to know who killed the desktop application, well, I think that application killed itself.

2 additional points for Google Maps:

1. It's free

2. You could get directions faster than as described here. Just type {start address} to {destination address} and hit Enter.

And of course if you have typed in that starting address before (like your home address), you will get auto-complete.

And of course if you want to still harness the power of your local machine instead of using a browser, get Google Earth. Still Free. Still don't have to buy a new version every calendar year.

hgs: If you ask for directions to a place, I think google maps will actually tell you whether it's on your left or right based on the directions you're given to the location.

"Web applications are evolving online at a frenetic pace, while most desktop applications are mired in circa-1999 desktop user interface conventions, plopping out yearly releases with barely noticeable new features."

1. Obviously you haven't seen Microsoft Office 2007.

2. Desktop applications could, for the most part, remain comfortably in a circa-1999 status and still remain vastly superior to most web applications.

Web apps have to change rapidly because they suck. Desktop apps don't have to change rapidly because they work just fine.

The real story here is that Google Maps is part of Google's strategy to get everyone in the world using its services, and as such presumably gets a lot of well-funded attention from the Google brain trust. OTOH, Streets & Trips has very little strategic value to Microsoft, and so no-one is paying any serious attention to improving it.

There are legitimate points to be made about web vs. desktop, but this comparison doesn't really do it, sorry.

BTW, this article has reminded me to buy an updated copy of Delorme's Street Atlas USA, which is a much better mapping application than Streets & Trips.

The UI of desktop applications have actually gotten worst, especially over the past few years. It all has to do with fancy and bloated UI.

Windows Vista is a perfect example. Unless you're using the search feature, and chances are some obscure settings still can't be reached by it, it takes a lot more clicks that its predecessor.

Same goes for the new nVidia control panel.

Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that people historically do not have a fast connection to the web, and hence aren't so patient with navigating through to maze to get to what they want, since you to factor in additional load time.

Desktop applications on the other hand never faced that dilemma.

I didn't know anyone actually used streets and tips. I un-installed it as soon as I got my laptop. I didn't know anything about it and I just assumed it was some bulky microsoft crap ware.

and now enter the world of desktop web mix via adobe air and google gears... and were ushering the new web to desktop world.

Are we talking about desktop vs web application or two competing development firms? It is not that desktop is dead, it is that google makes a really good app.

One thing is for sure, the limitations of the web have forced developers to rethink how they do their job. Maybe that is why there is innovation in web apps. The desktop paradigm has not changed in ages.

I know you are talking about the Desktop version. However, Google has created Google Maps Mobile (www.google.com/gmm) which does integrate with a GPS device. They've created several different versions for a lot of phones and pdas out there. All you need is a data plan.

Welcome to 2007! We're glad to have you here! :P

Also try:

Searching for a specific string of text within all you Yahoo Mail emails vs. the same in your locally installed copy of Outlook.

Install Google desktop search and search for any given file buried deep in your OS vs. Windows Search ( or worse, ask "Clippy the paperclip to do it )

You've provided a very good example for something that "web visionaries" have been predicting for quite some time.

The idea is older, but here is one of the earliest articles that I am aware of where the author predicted, and explained in explicit detail, why web-based applications would eventually supplant desktop applications:
https://www.paulgraham.com/road.html

It makes a great deal of sense, and is largely validated by your recent experience. I have little doubt that this trend will continue.

You left out comparing the most important detail of mapping software: accuracy of directions.
While Google Maps *may* have more up to date maps, Streets and Trips is much more likely to provide accurate directions (based on my anecdotal experience of getting lost more than once when making the mistake of using Google Maps).

Could not agree more. Spent the last 4-5 years developing web applications. My latest consulting job has thrown me back into the world of windows applications. During a recent design meeting for a new form, I was horrified as to the thoughts that were being agreed on. When I presented my idea, I was met with "That would take years to implement", though with a working prototype done in about 30 minutes... my idea was finally accepted. To me it is like the application people have sealed themselves inside a small box of dropdowns, radio buttons and toolbars with nothing to guide the user but an ill-defined tab index.

your google maps screen shot shows your gmail address.

if you care, you may want to edit it out.

The emphasis has been on web apps, thus the growing divide.

I wonder if this will change when the internet is no longer free, or if you have to type in your driver's license or passport number before using it (like in Europe at internet cafes)?

I hate to sound like a "hater", but I think the lack of innovation you speak of has something to do with the fact that you are using Windows.

Actaully advertising killed the desktop application. I have always found desktop mapping to be either outdated or expensive and it makes sense as to why. If you aren't paying more for updates the mapping company has zero incentive to update them. If you are, it gets expensive.

Online mapping on the other hand benefits from advertising and the constant need to drive users to the site. A great way to do that is to have the most updated information. Also, using a MS app for comparision is a poor choice since their competing product is now on the web in the form of Live Maps.

I'm not sure about google desktop apps though. I find their desktop search to be on the most invasive/worst UI desktop apps I've ever used. Showing the results in a browser window in a way you can't interact with them is terrible. Almost an alternative search application is better.

You were looking for it mr. Atwood.

https://voidsoft.ro/blog/index.php?title=who_killed_the_desktop_application_nobod&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

unfortunately, I cannot update by GPS with google map data (can I?)
so all the streets in my town are still missing....
but then again, that's really a GPS app fed by a desktop database yes?

Web-based mapping applications are good for what they provide... directions, POI's, etc... I don't use Streets and Trips, but I have used MapInfo and ESRI products for years and those products do oh so much more that Google Maps or MapQuest...

But as a consumer, having to house several terabytes of data to get satellite imagery, aerial photography, detailed streets, and business information (plus all the topographical features) is just not practical (at this point). Plus having the knowledge of the SDE or some other spatial engine for querying the data is a whole other issue...

The reminds me of the days when it was faster to load an application off of a Novell server than from the ancient 20mb hard drives (the speed difference being the FAT file system etc).

One great benefit to Google Maps - I can create my own maps and share them with anyone who has Internet access. With a desktop app, everyone I want to share with has to have the same application (and many times the same ~version~ of the desktop application).

As an example, our church supports a number of missionaries. I wanted to get a better idea of where all of those missionaries and mission organizations are located, so I plotted them on a Google map. Then I shared that map with a number of folks in my church just by sending them a link in an email. They click the link, and voila! The map appears in their browser, and we are all looking at the same information.

Now I can update the map anytime I need to, and they can all look at the updates any time they want to - no file sharing, no long set of instructions for how to load a file, etc. etc. These are benefits that would be very difficult to reproduce in a desktop-only application.

It's a data-heavy app. Pick something that optimizes for video and CPU cycles and desktop still rules, and probably always will:

https://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx

People are focusing on Google Maps and missing the point of web apps in general. I think one of the reasons that more UI innovation is happening with web apps is that web apps are where it's the easiest to innovate.

Let's assume the "state of the art" in desktop app design is Apple/XCode, where layout, etc. is done with the designer on nib files. Even with that, there's a lot of wiring up of code to the components, compilation, running, retrying. With web apps it's just spitting out text (HTML, CSS, Javascript) to a browser. You can have this done by a server app, or when designing you can have it be static files. Easy to change, easy to try new things, and a lot of the layout, drawing etc. is done for you.

"we're guaranteed to be using the latest version with the newest features"

I think this is key, especially in terms of the user interface. Through actual people using the application in day-to-day tasks, you find those common use-cases that the interface needs to be optimized for.

The web app gives the developers a stream of feedback for what users actually do, and allows them to streamline the ui at will without downloads.

It would seem the web app has the advantage when relatively little data needs to sit on the client machine, and rapid evolution of the interface is very important. So maps, yes. Photoshop with large files, probably not.

Hmmm... I've developed a web based video editor and certain tasks like applying effects and transitions are running much faster than iMovie on the desktop. Those that aren't, like pre and post processing the video, are being handled on the server. So I'm not sure the desktop will ALWAYS be a winner for resource heavy apps...

https://www.moviemasher.com

I have to echo the befuddlement of why you were using Microsoft Streets and Trips to begin with. I alway found the alternatives out there (Delorme's chief amongst them) far far superior to MS's offering, which always seems a little bit brain-dead.

That having been said, the last time I used a desktop mapping app was in 1998 (a time in which I was still very pro-MS myself, but even I could recognize the Streets and Trips suckage). I found the free and up-to-date nature of MapQuest at that time to make more sense than buying a new version of the CDs every year (and the difference at the time in intelligence making driving routes didn't matter to me as I'm pretty capable of reading a map to make my own directions).

Today, Google Maps is far far ahead of what the old Street Atlas offered, not just in proviing directions but also in terms of making an attractive yet highly informative map. MS S&T looks pretty much like I remember it being in 1998, except for the new chrome around the popup window.

IMHO, your MS bias is showing. Really. I've never heard of anyone actually using MS S&T, intentionally, more than once. This is a space where they failed miserably ten years ago, and they still haven't caught up!

One small but powerful tool seems to be making the Google UI better: a hyperlink can be anywhere on the page and it can do any action. In fact, it's easier to wire up a hyperlink to a server side CGI script or a client side Javascript function than to set up a whole dumb "form" just to get somethnig that looks like a button. And it's actually a big pain in the ass if you want to have menus and submenus and subsubmenus and right click context menus and dialog boxes on the web. It encourages, almost forces, a more direct UI because it's *hard* to replicate annoying multicontrol multilevel desktop-style UIs.

I forgot to include, it also encourages and almost forces context oriented UI (like all the relevant controls to a location are in the bubble for that location), because it's just as easy to put them there (in fact probably *easier*) then to stick them all up in some far away toolbar or menu. But in traditional desktop GUI toolkits, they make it really easy to add buttons to menus and toolbars, but hard to invent nice contextually relevant panes and panels.

I completely disagree with this line: "..killed Desktop Applications". The word "Application" is too generic to announce this opinion and then this article. It should remain specific to internet services only and yes, when you are getting something free, chances are that you will not complain about it.

Is anybody using some image manipulation tool on internet and then telling us it is better than desktop application i.e. photoshop?

As far as Desktop UI is concerned, users do not want it to be changed in every version of their applications. Believe me they do some serious stuff with these applications and not just email, surf, watch online movie traliers, shopping etc. From product manager's point of view, it is always a challenge to integrate new features with existing user interface of his application to make users feel better and familiar!

Internet Explorer is an application and tell me if MS changed its UI with every version? How would it feel if they add some funny UI stuff in every release?

My questions is: Is Internet an application platform or service platform? Is it okay to compare websites with desktop applications?

Last questions: Who is catching up with whom? Outlook catching GMail or GMail catching Outlook?

I would recommend comparing desktop Picasa to online Picasa. That would be a fair comparison. And maybe you'll realize that nobody killed "desktop apps". And maybe you'll realize that there is no such thing anymore as "desktop apps".

Your concluding sentence is completely insane. "It's hard not to conclude that desktop applications are dead?" Come on...considering that the browser itself is a desktop application, I think they are far from dead. Web-based office applications are still in a very primitive state, not to mention entire categories of applications for which there are no meaningful web-based alternatives...games, development tools (IDEs, compilers), advanced editors of any sort (photos, movies, audio), etc. I would argue, as much as I do find GMail useful, that even e-mail editing and management on the web is not all that hot (although I guess I would conclude it's in a tie for last with Outlook).

More to the point I think Google Maps highlights that web applications are actually alive, which is interesting. That fact that Google Maps can compete favorably with S&T demonstrates that requiring a moderately rich user interaction no longer rules out the web - and in fact may be better than similar desktop applications given some of the advantages of web-based computing (notwithstanding the differences in design which are mostly a function of the product team).

First, interfaces will change ecologically just as all things do. Those with bad interfaces die out on their own. The platform is irrelevent.

Second, You're comparing apples and oranges. Currently, the engineering application I work on has to chew through gigabyte to terabyte size blocks of binary data. This is a little different from some cutesy little consumer or CRM web application and not likely to be webified until distributed computing is *much* easier to accomplish than it is now.

Third, I know we'd all like to live in a world of free wireless ubiquitous internet. In *this* world, however, I have trouble getting a cell phone call reliably more than a few miles out of town, much less free wi-fi. I *need* stand-alone applications to get work done when I'm not connected.

There's an underlying assumption that everything works the same as a video, map or CRM application. The software world is much more varied than that. There will always be a place for both type of applications, as shown by the existence of google gadgets.

If you are looking for an answer to the original question, I think the general gut-reaction answer will usually be Google anyway. Its only going to get worse for Microsoft as well.

Desktop apps can bring the full power of GDI32/Avalon to bear, and yet rarely do. Resulting in apps that are hard to use. Web based applications have to use a dinky little pocket scripting language to manipulate incompatible DOM's across at least 4 major browsers and yet the apps are often easier to use. Even the ones powered by Flash aren't as easy to use as they could be. By the time you make a flash interface easy to use, you're almost back to just straight HTML w/Javascript.

It's almost enough to make you believe in the 37 signals mantra "constraints are good".

In my opinion, there is a lot that can be learned by comparing Outless Express to Exchange Web Mail.

Microsoft did an excellent job of extending a familiar UI to the web, and the wrote it in Classic ASP, which must have been a very painful experience.

In my opinion, Exchange Web Mail is one of the best online implementations of an e-mail client, and is still just barely showing its age now that its (4?) years old.

Gmail on the other hand has an unusual and AJAX heavy interface. Once you are used to it, then its fine, but if your expecting an outlook style client, look elsewhere.

Oh, and the death of the desktop application was ruled a suicide.

> While Google Maps *may* have more up to date maps, Streets and Trips is much more likely to provide accurate directions

I've had good and bad experiences with both. I don't think any mapping solution will provide perfect directions every time.

> alway found the alternatives out there (Delorme's chief amongst them) far far superior to MS's offering

I've tried Delorme-- I even had a version bundled with that old 1998 serial port GPS that took 4 AA batteries-- but I liked S&T better. I haven't looked at newer versions, but I'd assume it's mired in the same old toolbars, menus, right-click GUI paradigm, too.

> in traditional desktop GUI toolkits, they make it really easy to add buttons to menus and toolbars, but hard to invent nice contextually relevant panes and panels.

Reed, exactly!

The Google Gears is something that Microsoft should consider doing. It would allow you to choose a start and end, and it could grab the images before there.

"This should be an unfair comparison. Streets and Trips is free to harness the complete power of the desktop PC, whereas Google Maps is limited to web browser scripting and HTTP calls to the server"

LoL! - This is written like the combined power of googles web servers are no match for a single x86/g5 processor ;o)

XAML and .NET 3 anyone?
While not forcing developers to abandon 'menus and toolbars' paradigms, it offers at least WYSIWYG for designining of modern (web-like) interfaces.
For me, the desktop apps got a second breath.

At the risk of sounding paranoid, another difference between the two is that (if signed in, which I usually am), Google has a record of where you travel, which it can then add to its already-voluminous collection of personal information...

"Web apps have to change rapidly because they suck. Desktop apps don't have to change rapidly because they work just fine."

Please, tell us more.

Jeff's comparison of "Who Killed the Desktop App?" is flawed on one major point, he's comparing two separate products made by two separate companies. It's like comparing Firefox to Internet Explorer, sure they both do the same thing, but they are still written by two different groups. What's not to say that Google makes better applications then Microsoft? In fact, who out there uses Microsoft live (and for those of you that just said 'I do'... GIGGLE).

In todays world of programming you are confronted with IDEs that do all the coding for you, you add a control and it adds thousands of lines of code. The web is getting close to that with massive AJAX libraries. However, for those companies out there that still roll their own code, they have a chance of it being faster.

There are still pros and cons to web vs desktop. Web is definitely catching up in some aspects. And if you can write a web application that does exactly what you need it to do, then you probably have a winner due to the fact that you can update at will and have less adminstrative overhead involved. But that's typically for things that are just self-contained that don't interface with other applications, APIs, etc.

But for those applications that are just so massive, they tend to get to a point that being web-based isn't feasible and they go back to being a deskop application.

And besides, who's internet connection is 100% reliable anyway.

Let's not forget in the comparisson between desktop apps and web apps easy of development. Example, required knowledge: desktop app - C#, desktop app - C#, Asp.net, Javascript, Ajax...

Come on Jeff, you know as well as any of us that for every ugly, unusable desktop app there are hundreds of awful web apps.

You're comparing Google (an innovator) to Microsoft (a "refiner", to be polite). The battle here isn't between web and desktop, it's between carefully cultivated talent and focus-group, design-by-committee bureaucracy.

How about comparing the current state of the web to equivalent work done on the desktop by ID Games, Sierra, Ableton, Apple, or Avid? (And why do so many start with the letter 'A'? I have no idea.)

Just as Microsoft is the exception to the rule on the desktop, Google is the exception to the rule on the web. You should never compare anything to either one of those companies.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this post was just flame-bait. Yes, the web has highlighted a few good design paradigms, mainly task-oriented navigation, but in terms of overall usability, *most* of the web is still scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Most of the comments here take one side or another. To me, the web applications have their pros and cons just like desktop apps as it stands today. In the case of mapping, I haven't had a chance to use S&T yet but from the author's description, I can see Google map has the upper hand for in the mapping software arena.

There are things web app couldn't do as well as their desktop counter parts (i.e. spreadsheet, other office apps, games, etc). Desktop apps are mostly feature rich. The web apps are mostly convenience in the sense that you can access it anywhere a computer with a browser and you don't need to maintain it by installing updates/upgrades.

To most people including me, being able to access anything anywhere is very important. With web app, I can do that with ease. I don't have to bring my pc with me where ever I go. I can be on vacation in South of France and still be able to do everything I can do as if I am in the office without having to bring my own pc. All I need is a computer with a browser with internet access.

This is the future and the shift is happening fast with player like Google. It?s a paradigm shift. Sun Microsystems is realizing its vision - the network is the computer.

Desktop is not dead yet but it is going that route. There are still a lot of apps that require localized computing. If unlimited bandwidth becomes a reality and everything can be run remotely and results pipe back to the user, all we need to run anything is a computer with a browser (aka dumb terminal). Desktop apps' days are numbered.

The only point I want to raise is that S&T does more in the mapping space than just driving directions. Being a good MSFTie, I use maps.live.com, but would use Google before using S&T for driving directions.

What you can't do with either of the online services is spatial analysis of data. When I worked at a real estate firm, we built pretty interesting reports using S&T to map our sales volumes and time on market and such.

So, I think the consumer desktop mapping application is dead, and the business desktop mapping application is dying. It just isn't quite dead yet. I'm sure google or MSFT will add the ability to report on datasets pretty soon.

I don't know. I developed a web app to serve as our call tracking interface, and it works well for 5 of our customers. The moment I tried adding our full customer list the whole thing falls apart, with over a minute of load time for the dropdownlist.

I think I'll be rewriting this as a Windows app, because I don't like any of the alternatives for the web app. The best one seems to be the AjaxControlToolkit's AutoComplete control, but that doesn't limit users to valid entries and seems more error prone in general.

This is a bit like the old adage of not coming to the wrong conclusion that all frogs go deaf if you cut off all their legs because they stop jumping when you give them the jump command.

There has always been a strong push for desktop developers to *not* push the UI border, this has been a concious choice and many have been reprimanded for trying to go to outside "what users are used to". Now with web applications gaining traction, with designers that have never been constrained by silly things like convention, companies are a lot more open to new user interfaces.

Another issue is that it's harder to make a compelling UI in an desktop application. The basic desktop app is all widgets and buttons and trying to go outside that requires much more effort than it does when it comes to a webpage. Just trying to effectually embed a browser in your application comes with it's own set of lovely headaches. This is where things like XAML are going to play a huge part, now you can have the "ease" of XHTML/CSS layouts with the richness of a desktop application.

Not everything is slower than the web version. For example reading feeds in Google Reader is still painfully slow and cumbersome compared to the speed of reading feeds via FeedDemon. I can load FeedDemon and have filtered through 30 posts before Reader even gets me to my first page of feeds.

Another aspect is that users are conditioned to "put up with" the annoyances of web apps yet are very sensitive to desktop applications. I would never allow an ad in a desktop app yet I let them in my online apps, mostly because I have no choice. Also there are slow-downs and a complete lack of real "history" or customization wtih a lot of these web apps, things you'd demand in a desktop app yet we let web apps get away with all sorts of horrible user interface issues. How many web apps can you actually not use your mouse at all and go pure keyboard? Almost none.

The future isn't so black and white, though I understand you have to make such drastic statements to sex up your blog a bit. Desktop apps will never die, they'll just change. In fact "web apps" and "desktop apps" are bound to meet and mate, producing hybrid apps, such as sidebar gadgets, desktop search engines, music manages and players that play and index local media yet allow deep browsing of the web, a la Zune or iTunes.

> Desktop apps will never die, they'll just change

Desktop apps will most certainly die if they evolve as slowly as Streets and Trips has. On some level, it's outright laziness to adopt innovations that emerged from the web world. As Scott said-- it's not so much a death of desktop applications as it is a suicide.

This is an especially prescient post considering Apple announced Safari for Windows today, along with promoting Safari as "the way third-parties can build applications for the iPhone". It seems JavaScript is the wave of the future.

Online apps dominate for any reference material, including maps. The rate of change is just too high, and the feature set fits the web well. Google has been awesome in this space. Maps is one area, but look at dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc too. Who would use a printed or CD-based encyclopedia these days?

I think other markets will continue to require a desktop presence. Can't see trading in my development tools for a web version. Office tools like word processing and spreadsheet are available on the web, but they suck and I don't see their use growing much beyond a novelty.

Other markets are a mixed bag. Games for example, clearly the graphics and whatnot requires a strong desktop presence, but having an on-line component is becoming a must-have for games these days. Even console games are heavily influenced by and online presence....

-Andy

re: google reader...

Then again, I HATE desktop-bound RSS readers. I completely gave up on them a couple of years ago. I regularly use about three different machines (work desktop, home desktop, laptop) and trying to keep RSS software in sync would be a nightmare. Google reader might suck (I don't know, never used it) but Newsgator Online is fast and has every feature I need....

-Andy

"Apple announced Safari for Windows today, along with promoting Safari as "the way third-parties can build applications for the iPhone". It seems JavaScript is the wave of the future."

My gut tells me that Safari on Windows combined with AIR using WebKit AND third-party development on the iPhone being done against Safari is going to be much, much more significant than we realize right now.

At risk of sounding like a Mircosoft lackey I'd like to reccommend that you try the Microsoft Local maps web counterpart (https://local.live.com). I find it much better than Google maps. In fact the beta Yahoo! web maps are better too. I will give Google maps props for being the first Ajax style maps system and really spawned some of the others with that competition but it hasn't really kept up with the innovation of the others.

I will say the new Google street level view is pretty cool however. I can't believe they really intend to scan the entire worlds roads though... so I'm guessing the usefullness will be pretty limited to people living in major cities. I really like the Birds Eye View style aerial photographs on local.live.com even better though. I mean, being able to see the street at a low level is neat but being able to see the whole block at an angle and extremely zoomed in is probably more useful in reality. Also local.live.com has much better mechanisms for storing your locations and saving your custom markings and also it has (the best feature of all) the auto refresh on your searches based on your view region. You just type in "food" then drag and zoom around to get a refresh of your searches for the new region. Very wonderful.

I think the biggest problem for online applications is lack of privacy(specially for internal documents stored in googles office), at least on desktop you can try to achieve it

Try AAA's mapping site. It's even nicer than GM (for road travel) and it's free to.

Google and O'Reilly did. By killing the excitement around desktop apps to sell more ads and books respectively.

Delorme is similarly stuck in the past - I attempted to use it for creating bike route maps since manually tracing Google Maps at bikely.com was a tedious way to calculate elevation. It's easy to imagine how a modern interface could outshine something where you're tracing roads by hand with a mouse - something like clicking on each intersection with an automatic update for distance, cue sheet, etc. It actually took longer to fight with Delorme's 1997-era interface for adding points and it was often necessary to force the routing engine not to be "smart" in spectacularly stupid ways (e.g. making substantial detours to a 65mph freeway rather than a much shorter jog through a 20mph zone) - and as if the usability hit wasn't bad enough, the maps had lower visual quality and soaked a couple gigabytes to store that inferior data.

Just installing and patching Delorme took longer than tracing a month or two's worth of riding...

re: Andy + desktop RSS readers

Funny, I'm the opposite, I HATE web-based readers for their lack of speed and power and ability for me to customize them as I want. I'm a FeedDemon user and love it.

Saying desktop vs. web is a rather simplistic view though, when actually what Newsgator Online and FeedDemon do is the way of the future. You can use FeedDemon, a Windows-based desktop feed reader, with all it's power and speed and yet all your feeds are synchronized with Newsgator Online, so if you are on a machine that doesn't have FD then everything is still kept in sync and viewable from their web-based client.

The power of desktop apps when you're on your main machine with the freedom of going web-based when you need it. That is more the future of products than this us-vs-them attitude of desktop vs. web. In a more general form the real future is service back-ends that both desktop and web-based applications can interact with. For example there is no way you could pay me enough to upload and tag my flickr photos from the web-based UI, it's just too slow when working with large amounts of photos. A desktop app is the only way to do it quickly. Another example is time-tracking applications. I'd much rather work with a widget in my tray to start/stop tasks than an open web-page in a browser.

I suppose it's people's basic nature to gravitate to a two-party/two-opinion/dualistic way of thinking but the real power is when both are combined.

It's the feedback cycle, something a web application does particularly well at.

Secondly, being a free service, users don't have the expectation that a user interface remain stable. This makes an app easier to change and adapt the user interface.

The bit about data intensive is important as well... refer to Jim Gray's talk about querying astronomical data.

The power of a universal browser plus URLs is means that web-based Maps is viral, and exposes more users to their user interface, thus perpetuating the virtue of feedback.

But when you use Google Maps, you are getting computer time on a machine that is way better than your own, or a combination of machines anyway. I'm not surprised it's faster, although there is no reason why Google's thing should be any *better*

You've got it the wrong way around: all the innovation is taking place at *Google*, who releases their software on the web.

I'm going to jump out on a limb and confess that I really like Microsoft MapPoint. In fact, it's one of the first things I install after installing the OS and security software.

As others have mentioned, the fact that it's offline is critical. I use it to make maps and routes for getting around on trains and buses. There is no wifi in the middle of an abandoned military base, to put it lightly.

And when I'm online, then I just click the button to go to Live Maps and and satellite imagery and traffic info.

Nothing like comparing a 5-year old desktop program with the latest version of a web app over cable/dsl. Even I, who despise Microsoft (for good reasons), find your comparison unfair. Akin to "shooting fish in a barrel".

I'm confused. Why hasn't anyone started a debate yet about whether Google Maps runs better under Windows or Linux???? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

-john

If you read the book Hackers & Painters by Paul Graham, he makes a whole point about web applications and how they are much better from the company and user side and etc.. From the company it makes sense, by for the user its no so clear.. but I guess this might be some sort of proof.

Got to agree with your sentiment

For me this happened in about 2001 when I started a project to do a database for a job hunter agent.

Several things became clear

The surprise was that users did not really want training, they just wanted the bookmark. This was a significant part of the costs eliminated, the sort of costing ignored by code heads..

Another surprise was the cost saving in not having to do any kind of install across the network.

The cost I kept quiet about was the extra load on the cheap ethernet networks, which have a low saturation point of below 50% capacity. You have to know a bit about networking to appreciate this point. In essence an office network running on cheap Ethernet can not carry anything like the amount of data implied by it being say a 100Mb networking.

I could list other discoveries, but the web application has been around a long while, its just now people are beginning to notice.

>>If unlimited bandwidth becomes a reality and everything can be run remotely and results pipe back to the user, all we need to run anything is a computer with a browser (aka dumb terminal). Desktop apps' days are numbered.

Wow! So this guy is saying that desktop-only applications survive forever.

Unless I need GPS input, I always choose Google Maps. Since I use various computers at work and away from work, I really find the "save to my maps" feature a big plus of Google.

Streets and Trips could be a killer desktop app, but Microsoft also has maps.live.com, which is a good parallel to maps.google.com. Maybe Microsoft has a mapping software budget and maps.live.com gets the lion's share of funding.

Microsoft's other desktop apps are certainly evolving faster than their desktop mapping solutions.

>I tested it myself, and she's right.

Finally--the words every girl longs to hear. ;)

A few comments on S&T 2007--also, you can see their blog at https://streetsandtrips.spaces.live.com/:

1. The interface hasn't been updated in 5 years, pretty much. My copy of S&T 2002 looks essentially the same as S&T 2007. The underlying data, however, has gone through several changes.

2. S&T 2007 is sold as a low-cost GPS solution; for around $100 you get a USB GPS puck and a copy of the software. As a GPS solution, off-line capabilities are essential--you cannot use Google Maps to tell you which exit to get off while driving down the highway.

3. The new functionality in S&T 2007, vs. the 2002 version, all involves connections to Live Local (aka "Virtual Earth," former "Mappoint"). There's a (cryptic) button on the toolbar that opens Live Local in your browser at the same location you're viewing in S&T 2007--because the Web service has satellite (and low-altitude airplane) images, while an off-line program won't. Another (also cryptic) button lets you search for companies through the Web service.

From the above I assume that the next release of S&T 2007 will be based around using the Web service to map out trips, relegating the off-line application to essentially just a GPS interface. I imagine the reason we haven't seen anything like this yet is:

a. Live Local was still undergoing substantial changes over the last year, and
b. Until (unless?) UMPCs take off, I don't think a PC-based GPS solution will sell all that well.

In other words, I couldn't justify a large team to rebuild S&T--so I imagine Microsoft couldn't either; however, I assume they have at least a small team working to build an off-line version of Live Local.

(Addendum, sorry--) Before someone else corrects me, let me correct myself to say that there are other new features in S&T 2007 vs. 2002--but they all involve serving as a GPS navigation system. That is, S&T 2007 is essentially S&T 2002 + (1) links to local.live.com and (2) much better GPS-mode functionality.

For example, S&T 2007 will say "turn left" when you have to turn left, exploiting Windows' text-to-speech engine.

I use local.live.com myself to plan trips (I like the shape-drawing function, although I assume Google Maps has or will soon have a similar feature), and I use S&T 2007 only for its off-line GPS function.

insane idea. i would never use a web based app instead of a desktop based app in their current state.
the reasons have all been mentioned already: slow, problem with privacy, no customization possible, unreliable connection etc..
oh as for the internet connection, i do have 5 ISP's, yes five, but only one of them is fast enough (8mbps) and still slow to replace desktop apps (also, my upload speed sucks).
and, one thing might not have been mentioned: i absolutely don't want to live in a browser (either IE, or firefox or anything). yes i do close it several times everyday.

p.s.: i find googlemaps very unintuitive and frustrating to use. then, gmail is the same story. (yeah i hate all webmail.) if these are examples of a "good" web based app, what are the others like?!

good post. made me realize i haven't had an instant messaging client installed since gmail+talk and meebo.com came out

Instead of literally meaning desktop applications are dead I see the point that more and more applications will now be developed as web apps instead of desktop applications.

I actually came to the same conclusion in a different situation. I have been a C++/ C# programmer for quite a long time (7 yrs) and used to wonder about the popularity of languages like Ruby, Python...surely you cannot create an installer and distribute applications written in these languages, as easily as you can do with those written in c++/c#...and that these were not for any 'serious' application development.

Then it occured to me that as more and more applications get designed as web applications, languages like python, ruby become popular as they do give quite a lot of power to the programmer when compared to the traditional languages....and these apps are run from the server where the programmer can do what he wants to.

You are onto something, Jeff.

In general, web apps and desktop apps are headed in two different directions when it comes to usability.

Web apps are headed towards universal use by the masses. Desktop apps will nichify as the expert tools of the computer literate.

The truth is that most human beings lack the capacity to operate their own PC (even a Mac) to the extent of actually having a software configuration. However, almost all people can manage to point and click their way through a web browser even after only a few minutes of first time use.

As online access becomes cheaper and more ubiquitous, and generations of humans are raised only having to use web browsers to get by, developers will realize that they can make a WHOLE LOT more money writing web apps for dummies than desktop apps for geeks, which in turn will bring about new generations of web apps that provide specialized functionality for the masses.

Even if someone invented an operating system with local software that was as easy to use as a web browser, most people would still only use it to launch a web browser.

Although Google maps lacks certain advantages that a desktop app has, it makes up for it by running on a fifth generation computer (massively parallel) instead of a fourth generation computer.

Computer scientists in the early 1980's predicted the current predicament of the microelectronic: someday it would be impossible to increase cpu speed... further gains in performance could come only through massive parallelism.

The Japanese government began a 10 year program to develop a 5th generation computer. Their focus on AI and logic programming was a mistake; although it's commonly believed the project was a failure, several machines were produced, all of which used concurrency models that are widespread today. In 1997, a parallel supercomputer named Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov at chess, proving the effective of parallel search in AI.

The Google Maps server is most likely a cluster (or cluster of clusters) with about a terabyte of RAM; most likely the machines are something like 1U servers with 16G of RAM each. Most likely, a front-end server uses a hash function to direct requests for image tiles to an appropriate back-end server. Because the seek time is zero, such a system will greatly outperform a conventional disk system -- if utilization is high, cost can be much less than a conventional disk-based systems.

It's a sweet example of how a tiny slice of a 5th generation machine can greatly outperform a 4th generation machine; you could probably fit a set of image tiles on (most of) a large modern hard drive, but seek times would harm interactivity. The only practical way to deliver such an application would be pre-loaded on hard drives.

An alternative strategy is to construct a vector-based map and let it live on a combination of cache RAM and disk. The data structures to render something like that are a bit complicated. In the end, Google maps ends up feeling 'more interactive' than most desktop apps, despite the effects of network latency.

Heh, heh, Dope Street. That's cool!

Newest information? FROM GOOGLE? Ya, right.

The sat. pics for my neighbourhood were updated last year from 6 year old pics to 2 year old pics. A few months back, the updated the sat pics again BACK to the 6 year old pictures.

Do I leave near any sensitive military instations? NOT IN CALGARY.

I don't trust google's maps to be more than 6 to 10 years up to date any more. IN fact, I treat it as more of a curiousity than a reference tool. I can't see, with data like that, why anyone would.

I'm surprised how many people mention that developing a DHTML application is so much faster than developing a desktop application. I've personally found the opposite to be true. I've discussed this with several colleagues and they agree. If I was in the business of shipping a software product, it'd be a desktop application simply because time is money.

Jeff, your great article generated quite a lively discussion. It's been a pleasure to read it all.

One day down the road the desktop application may indeed be killed, but I hope it won't happen any time soon. As of today S&T offers me a lot more functionality than any online map service, including Google Maps. Actually I'd go as far as saying that an on-line map service of today vs. S&T is like comparing MS Paint to Photoshop (MS Paint being the free app included with Windows). But, yes, for many tasks an on-line map may be just fine.

By the way, there are several different ways to enter start & destination points into S&T. A quick way is to just type the address into the Route Planner. Type an address and hit Enter. Done! Type another address and hit Enter. Done! Then just press the "Get directions" button to generate a route from A to B.

You might wanna take your e-mail address out of that screen shot, wumpus

Hmmm...and Microsoft Streets doesn't have Google Street View!

https://streetviewgallery.corank.com

106 comments, and there's no mention of dial up?!

Some of us live in countries where high speed internet isn't cheap, if it's available (I live in New Zealand). I think predicting doom and gloom for the desktop app based on this one isolated incident is a little premature.

Honestly there is a lot of talk about the cool features of My Maps and street level view. As a firm supporter of technology and understanding as many apps as I can those in a sense were ripped off of Local.live.com.

Here is how.

1) pushpin and save maps has been in virtual for AT LEAST a year. THe pushpin has been there since launch which was withing weeks of google maps.

2) street level is basically https://preview.local.live.com and birds eye view mixed together. Seeing as how https://preview.local.live.com

I'm just saying the "cool" stuff that google has I am sorry to say Microsoft had first in Virtual Earth (aka https://local.live.com).

I suggest people use Virtual Earth it is pretty much the only one I use since it seem sto be superior to all others I have tried.

Yes, Google Maps is so fast and easy to use that I still waiting after 40 seconds to finally load the first map. If you are internet connection sucks (not every country or city has trillion mbit connections like in the US). The user experience of those web applications like Google Maps drops dramatically. I don't want to wait 40 seconds before the site is fully loaded, then my desktop mapping software is coming up with the directions way faster.
I don't want to think about using a word processor online -- first all the documents on someone else server (Eek!) and then when the internet fails to work you cant use your documents.

I really hope to see more mixture the offline and online world in both browser-based as desktop applications. If you look at WPF or Flash/AIR you can even bring the web experience (snappy animations etc.) to the desktop application.

The problem just is that most developers of desktop applications haven't innovated the user interface.

This is a bad comparison. If you want a real bak-off, compare comparable products. How about Google Maps vs Google Earth? (I say that earth wins every time) Having a thick client does a LOT of things for you that a browser can't hack. 3D is the obvious one, but 3D is of questionable value. The Earth client lets you stream in locally stored files, spreadsheets, GPS, etc. These are things that a web-app won't do.

I'll be curious if there is ever a web application that gets up to the functionality of S&T's big brother - MapPoint.

MapPoint can be programmed and built into application. But I suppose the same is true of Google Maps and Virtual Earth.

Eric
https://www.mp2kmag.com

> It's hard not to look at the facts and conclude that desktop
> applications-- at least desktop mapping applications-- are dead.

Perhaps said by others above (I didn't read all the comments)... but can you point me to the URL where I can Photoshop images and design page layouts via a web interface? Also, I know that there are sites for editing documents ans spreadsheets online, but they are very limited in their functionality.

As you said, "At least desktop mapping applications... are dead"... A great example where the web provides significant advantages. And there are plenty of other examples of other examples where the web provides a superior platform for a particular type of app. But there are lots of apps where a dedicated CPU (or two), the speed of RAM make a huge difference... and applications where even broadband just isn't going to provide enough speed between the interface and the business logic.

I agree with your premise, but not your example. In my opinion, the reason Google Maps is better is because Google has a team that is probably 50 to 100 times bigger than the Microsoft team working on their product. Google maps is central to their business model. For Microsoft, their mapping program is but a mere afterthought. So the problem is not web v.s. desktop, it's importance.

I am a developer and have created solutions for the web and desktop environments. I much prefer the desktop. I seems that any time someone talks about web vs. desktop they discuss positive aspects of the web and miss out that the desktop can do the exact same thing.

For instance, any desktop application I write can check to see if updates are available. Any desktop application I write can check to see if data updates are available. I frankly don't see any point whatsoever for the web. I think it is a mess of html nonsense.

I personally think browsers should be redesigned to be desktop applications that download "modules" (sites) which contact their server to get content and such. This would make development much easier, because you then could use the EXACT same component on the desktop or in the modified browser. To get around different machine configurations, a machine could have a software framework installed like Java, or .Net.

I think it's Microsoft that's the problem here, so many of their smaller apps are just awful. Example: it's quicker to do a Google search on MSDN than to launch the MSDN help application and browse the documentation. All they had to do was dump a copy of the MSDN website onto your hard drive and let you use a web browser, but instead you get a bloated application that takes 30 seconds to launch and freezes your PC while it does so.

You left out comparing the most important detail of mapping software: accuracy of directions.
While Google Maps *may* have more up to date maps, Streets and Trips is much more likely to provide accurate directions (based on my anecdotal experience of getting lost more than once when making the mistake of using Google Maps).

///desktop applications-- at least desktop mapping applications-- are dead///

Really so? But now web-based mapping services are practically useless in some special fields like runtime navigation, geodesy, fleet management etc... I try to sell b2b fleet management solution based on web-mapping service, but have a lot troubles with it...

From Patrick on September 17, 2007 01:23 PM:

"I personally think browsers should be redesigned to be desktop applications that download "modules" (sites) which contact their server to get content and such. This would make development much easier, because you then could use the EXACT same component on the desktop or in the modified browser. To get around different machine configurations, a machine could have a software framework installed like Java, or .Net."

What prevented the widespread use of Java applets (except for Yahoo! Games - type sites) is that they took too long to download and hogged system resources. But I agree that the web needs to be rearchitected to be more developer friendly.

Desktop Apps are dying? I don?t believe web-based applications will replace the desktop apps totally. How to open a web app, yes you need a browser - a desktop application. I do believe some desktop apps can be streamlined into web based ones.

Merry Christmas!

Andrzej Filipowicz
www.andrzejfilipowicz.com

no, google's service is much better in comparation with <a href="https://local.live.com/">https://local.live.com/</a>;
i cant understand those who advices to you micro and soft - that is crap!

I didn't know anyone actually used streets and tips. I un-installed it as soon as I got my laptop. I didn't know anything about it and I just assumed it was some bulky microsoft crap ware.

Thank you for this recomendations. I'll remember it.
And I like Newsgator too. It's cool.

Dope Street. That's cool!

<a href=",">https://bxd.net.ru/</a>;
Thank you for this recomendations.

I completly disagree with the point made about desktop applications diying. Thats not happening, infact desktop is blending into web applications. Having said that, I would personally develop a desktop application over webapplication unless the client specifically intends to use it on the web and from different places, other wise if he want to use it from one machine only, i vote desktop is the way forward always.

Unless the client really wants complete mobility, then only web applications take over, other wise in plain simple terms, desktop applications kick ass when it comes to web vs desktop. I mean honestly, you can have a powerfull desktop app made to have remote connections to anywhere in the world. Now why in the world would I want to use a stupid browser with half the functionality and more of it chopped off because the company designer wanted it to be cross browser complient.

Also, making a web app is giving your self to the mercy of the client. Because with web the client thinks he has more control over, no need to install so they get a bit excited and step into deep waters without knowing how to swim or even have a life jacket. With the desktop this never used to be the case. Client comes with their requirments, the software company uses those requiments and blend THEM into their product not the other way round. This way the client is not in control but the product is. And that makes a powerfull application.

The client is a child. Remember that. They dont know jack about anything, but they are willing to do this and this and this and dont care how its about to be done or wheather they need it in the first place. Most of the times the client has no idea of their requirments. If we the developers give our selfs to a mad man (client) then how can you achieve a good product.

You left out comparing the most important detail of mapping software: accuracy of directions.
While Google Maps *may* have more up to date maps, Streets and Trips is much more likely to provide accurate directions (based on my anecdotal experience of getting lost more than once when making the mistake of using Google Maps).
https://www.aboutprocess.com/

Gmail on the other hand has unusual and AJAX-heavy interface. Once you are accustomed to this, it is fine, but if your client waiting prospects style, look elsewhere.

Gmail on the other hand has unusual and AJAX-heavy interface. Once you are accustomed to this, it is fine, but if your client waiting prospects style, look elsewhere.

Gmail on the other hand has unusual and AJAX-heavy interface. Once you are accustomed to this, it is fine, but if your client waiting prospects style, look elsewhere.

You left out comparing the most important detail of mapping software: accuracy of directions.
https://www.aboutprocess.com/
While Google Maps *may* have more up to date maps, Streets and Trips is much more likely to provide accurate directions (based on my anecdotal experience of getting lost more than once when making the mistake of using Google Maps).

For sales people who cover a territory, there is no better product than Microsoft? Streets and Trips. You can import thousands of prospects, assign them unique pushpins that identify their 'sales value' to you, search for best prospects and plan sales calls that group them together. Then you plug in a GPS receiver and the laptop you have to carry with you anyway guides you with GPS turn by turn spoken directions. You keep your eyes on the road, instead of having to glance down to read hand written directions - or a Google printout map. Streets and Trips helps reduce the cost of sales by ensuring reps know about all the opportunities in the area - and because they have great planning tools like "show me how many prospects are within 'X' driving minutes of my current location" and more - they can travel more efficiently and see more prospects in the same trip - saving gas and maybe even a return airfare. Reps spend more time in front of the prospect selling instead of behind the windshield driving. There's many more benefits....but the point is - Google can't hold a candle to ST in this application.

Very interesting. Thanks
https://design-for.ru

Interesting. You must have some incredible bandwidth available. I don't use Google maps at all because it's painfully slow on highspeed connections and completely unusable over dialup.

computers are getting much much faster and can handle much more.

meanwhile internet programers are trying to shove everything into web applications so you never need software or a fast computer. Like some lame move back to the 60's and mainframe computing -

you've got so power sitting on everyones desk yet they want to make it nothing more then a dumb termnial.

the world needs more application devs and lets internet programing nerds with too much spare time.

Very nice ))