Hi Sean,
I totaly agree with you, we just sold a solution that was basicly a VB6 app
sent through the browser, it works really well, all the band with problems
all sorted out. Nfuse, is a life saver.
I have used VB6 web classes etc, did a course on it. I then went to the IT
manager, and asked him what was that citrix thing you mentioned lets use
that!!! Well we invested havily on the server etc, but in the short/medium
term, we have got capabilities that far exceeded what we thought possible.
As for errors, I have not had any problems, even the colors on the reports
seem to be fine.
Anyway I just think that if one has a working tool that makes life easy with
fewer bugs why not use it!
The only down side to citrix are the concurrent user license fees, but for
the apps that are for intranet / extranet, this is not a problem, most of
the costs out weigh the effort of writting web based apps, and we give a
much richer user interface.
(Tried and Tested!! it works!)

Take care
Manoj

"Sean Wagle" <SeanW@ppslink.com> wrote:
>
>Do we really need a .NET version of VB?
>
>I've been pleasantly surprised how easy it is to run our ADO applications
>under Citrix MetaFrame. Most
>of our programmers don't need to know anything about the internet, (or browsers,
>or IP protocols...)
>they just program away in VB using the standard Microsoft controls. Put
it
>under Citrix, and Presto! You
>have a web app. No muss, no fuss.
>
>I get the feeling that Microsoft is a little late to this party after wasting
>their initial efforts on those
>lame "WebClasses".
>
>The changes in VB.NET sound interesting, but I'm going to be recommending
>to our IT head that
>we stick with VB6 for another year or two. It does what we need, and it
isn't
>going away anytime
>soon. Heck, even VB5 would be fine. It runs just as fast and looks/works
>the pretty much the same
>as VB6. (We mainly upgraded to VB6 to get a Package And Deployment Wizard
>that handles all
>those godawful ADO/ODBC dependencies properly.)
>
>I know it sounds antithecal to those of you who worry about "falling behind
>the technological curve".
>But not every market is so gung-ho about change. In fact, in the industry
>I work in, we are still
>competing against DOS (yes, *DOS*) products who make the argument "you don't
>need to
>upgrade your hardware, and you'll get the plain text screens you know and
>love!"