I've had this "fight" before and lost. :<  Fortunately for the client the
apps life was only supposed to be six to twelve months long.  Unfortunately
for the client, we ended up creating a release a week in the last phases of
development. :<<<<  Deployment out to regional office was a NIGHTMARE!  We
didn't have probs with synchronization cause we used Access for the forms
creation/execution only.  We were using Access to access a central SQL
Server.  However, like you mentioned, I believe using something VB in my
case (or C# in your case today :>) is the better way to go.  BUT, possibly
your biggest hurdle will be the front end is already developed in Access. :<
That is hard to compete against.

Cons to using C#
-new paradigm, language, IDE, manager are always afraid of change
-learning curve for language, APIs, deployment management, etc
-hey Access is better than using java/swing to do it!
-hey if the UI is in Acces why change?  that's a tough one you probably
can't argue against, MS afterall isn't going to rewrite MS Office in C# from
C++ over night

Pros to using C#
-huge integration with SQL Server
-MUCH better form design support in VS than in Access (IMHO that is)
-better multi-user architecture in WinForms than in Access
-better control over version control, source control, setup programs
-opportunity to easily document code (UML, documentation from code comments)
-opportunity to extend the "reach" of the application with giving it a web
front end later on, maybe webservices, RSS, etc
-Access really tops out with performance after six concurrent connections
(does your manager know that?)
-better support for code/development help with C# than with Access (ok,
that's a bit of exaggeration, but I'm biased :>)
-with .NET you can use Crystal Reports, which is MUCH superiour to Access
for reports (if that is truely a main concern for management)

Having said all this, you might be fighting a losing battle.  Good luck to
you, but you might have better luck with a future project than with this
one.  But that's cool, you're setting the framework with management about
the pros/cons of .NET.  Also be careful when you compare .NET to Access.
Access is the DB, and also the development and runtime environment.  .NET is
the framework, VB.NET and C# are the languages you code in, and VS2k3 is the
development environment (which I'm sure you already know that :>).  I see
unfair comparisons with java to .NET, that's like apples and oranges, .NET
to J2EE is the fair comparison, like C# is to java, or WinForms to Swing.

Good luck with this! :>

Bill,

I think that it will be hard to go. However, your winning point can be in my
opinion the VPN connections. With Access on low band wide you probably have
to use Citrix or any other terminal server. (However when it is Belgie than
you have probably at least ADSL and can that be less important)

With dotNet you can think on more webservice applications. Where you do the
database handling over the VPN line using the webservice,  while the client
has at his location a rich client application.

Some weeks ago a message like yours was crossposted to the Access newsgroup.
They told that everything can be done with Access. This is probably not
true, however most in house office business problems can probably be solved
with Access, where it is made for, and has a large group of users.

I find it forever hard to give opinions about this. Access has progress and
dotNet has progress. Now my interest is with dotNet. That I cannot compare
with experiences with Access in the past. Therefore, try it as well in an
access newsgroup. It can be very interesting when you crosspost that with
this newsgroup, than we can follow that as well and maybe give comments.

However just an idea

Cor

Thanks for the responses.
-Bill

A number of questions to consider:  What background does your client have?
If you get much deeper than "only a few can be making changes at once", are
the other arguments going to mean anything to him?  Will many of the other
arguments just be "buzzword-compliant"?  Will he be swayed by "214 million
computers have Access installed' or whatever the number is?

Why is the current solution being upgraded?  If it's performance-related,
that's a big chunk of your argument.  Newer versions of Access may not give
much better performance.

Are they looking to "fire and forget", essentially a new face on an old
program, or heavily revamp with potential for a fair amount of future
changes/releases?

A less technical argument might be to point to how MS positions the two
products.  There's a reason why Access isn't under the developer section of
MS' website.  It's aligned with the Office products as it's not positioned
as being a full-on development environment.  This is oversimplifying, but in
essence, Access is a power end-user tool that some grown over the years to
be able to do some pretty good stuff.  .NET is a developer's framework that
is intended to build serious applications.

You're not going to find much in the way of definitive comments that cast