A new wave of mobile technology has given people new lives, with freedoms no other culture in the history of mankind has enjoyed. The world's mobile-minded inhabitants talk and work and surf on the move. My XBOX allows me to speak online to friends as if we were at one another's homes. And much, much more is yet to come! The reason I and many others (hopefully you too!) are making mobile Web application development our life's work is simple: the early adopters of modern mobile technology are demanding it.

So whose vision of mobile computing is best? Well, has human nature ever been static? No, it hasn't, nor should it ever be. Someone is creating something new all the time. Some of us, myself humbly included, simply like to sit around and think up new stuff. We invent things out of thin air. At any time, for any number of reasons, things may change, but for now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit that Microsoft's .NET vision is in a hard-earned, well-deserved spotlight. And, if I may say so, Mr. Gates does not appear to be the big bad wolf I have read and heard about, but rather is a respectable and fair grandfather with a considerable amount of wealth. .NET creates open, fair, capitalistic opportunities for Microsoft's competition, and trust me, many of them will step up to the plate batting over .300 for the year.

Microsoft has two technologies for software developers to implement in mobile Web/device development. Please don't gloss over that I put a slash between Web and device because that is, in fact, the key to the issue. ASP.NET Mobile applications target the Web with virtually no Web-browser restrictions. HTML, cHTML, and WML browsers will all be served the correct code to keep ASP.NET Mobile Web applications rendering correctly. On the other hand, Compact Framework or CF applications (comprised of Smart Device Extensions or SDE technology) target Pocket PC 2002 devices and certain future Smart devices only. Devices capable of running CF applications must have a Microsoft OS at this time. Nonetheless, Compact Framework applications can take advantage of certain advanced functionality and features provided by the Windows CE-based Pocket PC 2002 operating system that cannot be duplicated by the ASP.NET Mobile toolset because of it Web-oriented, lowest-common-denominator approach.

The ASP.NET Mobile toolset (formerly called the Microsoft Mobile Internet Toolkit or MMIT) consists of controls that provide an additional software layer. This additional layer allows software developers to develop one set of code (in any .NET compliant language - VB.NET, C#, J#, etc.) and have the application then work on many devices. Thus, ASP.NET Mobile applications achieve the same device-independence that ASP.NET enjoys, by virtue of everyone owning a desktop-type computer (most of which come with pre-loaded browser software like Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser).

Remember, though, that both ASP.NET and ASP.NET Mobile require the device in question to have internet browser software loaded, or some other type of internet-based software capability built in. An example of the latter situation would be an ASP.NET Mobile application's output of a list control that is sent to a Nokia black and green (monochrome) screen, which really doesn't possess the full-featured internet browser that most ASP developers think of when they think of programming for the Web. In such a case, the ASP.NET Mobile List control would render itself correctly on the phone - though it wouldn't look much like the actual Web GUI design you had programmed on the front end other than containing the correct data in the list. The device is limited in its functionality, and ASP.NET Mobile's mission is to find a way to get around device limitations. ASP.NET Mobile accomplishes its mission of device-independence by first establishing a lowest-common-denominator set of functionality and implementing that limited (but suprisingly capable!) set of functionality to multiple devices. I believe the current count is at 140 devices. That is, ASP.NET Mobile controls will render themselves correctly on 140 different mobile devices. Wow, that's quite a layer of software!

But the world of lowest common denominators is not full-featured functionality at all, and that is what many applications will either require or be greatly enhanced by incorporating. Enter Smart Device Extensions and the Compact Framework. Using the Compact Framework's controls, PC-like games are possible via the Internet on a mobile device. Think about the sheer number of software applications on the shelves at stores everywhere that target the Win32 platform. Mobile versions of many of those software titles will be coming soon to a software store near you.

The magic of the Compact Framework takes place only with a little help from its friend, the .NET framework, which must physically be loaded onto each Pocket PC 2002 or Smart device intending to use the CF application. Considering the rates the wireless carriers are charging for mobile data plans (T-Mobile charges me $59.99/mo for 20mb of data usage), developers should encourage clients to load the .NET framework while the device is in the cradle, instead of trying to push the required .NET framework common language runtime (CLR) libraries to the device via a mobile internet connection. Whether charged or uncharged for the megabytes of transfer (about 20mb for the entire .NET framework), users of CF programs will enjoy a much more robust set of controls than will users of ASP.NET Mobile applications. Once the .NET framework is loaded on the device, the device is enabled to use any and all CF applications.

By the way, Windows Forms, ASP.NET Web Forms, ASP.NET Mobile Web Forms, and Compact Framework Forms can all be implemented using VB.NET, C#, and J#. Microsoft's technologies provide its developers with a true sense of language independence. Hopefully, the old C programmers will look forward to the opportunity to mentor the up-and-coming generation of Visual Basic (VB), C#, and J# Web-oriented application developers, since C is as much a Web language now as Java was once touted to be and Visual Basic has longed to become.

A pattern becomes apparent: ASP.NET Web Forms go with ASP.NET Mobile Web Forms, just as Windows Forms go with Compact Framework Forms. Further, both Web-deployed Windows Forms applications and the Compact Framework Forms applications require the client to have the .NET framework installed. Neither ASP.NET nor ASP.NET Mobile Web forms require such conditions. All told, a Microsoft developer who's working hard to meet everyone's needs and exceed the expectations of many must implement four versions of the same application.

First, let's face it. Nothing beats the convenience of shopping through aisles at the software store perusing titles of interest, and many shoppers will always want to purchase a CD (or physical media of some kind in a box) as opposed to downloading a piece of software from the Web or paying a service fee to use Web-based software. As a result, Windows Forms applications will always have their place. Second, the Web is here to stay, so ASP.NET Web Forms applications will always have a purpose. Third, mobile phone and smart devices abound all over the world. In the future, many millions more will be upgrading their mobile devices to more powerful, smarter, cooler, color mobile devices. So, the Compact Framework must exist. Consumers want the power of Windows coupled with the convenience and efficiency that the World Wide Web offers.

Last, but not least, due to their specific software and hardware needs, some people will not like or be able to use the devices that Microsoft chooses to implement its .NET framework on. They're more likely to purchase non-.NET compliant hardware, which cannot run CF applications. But you can bet these same people will still demand the increase in efficiency gained from using mobile Web applications on their devices. So, ASP.NET Mobile applications must also exist. Is being a conscientious programmer easy? No, but four sets of front-end code tied to a series of Web services to satisfy everyone is a lot better than thousands of static HTML pages to edit one by one in a less-than capable, sloppy code-creating HTML editor that only serves about 20% of the world's needs overall anyway. In other words, this avid VB 6 programmer would still be typing Web pages in notepad as my venerable college professors instructed me to do, if it weren't for Microsoft Visual Studio.NET.

If you have something to say, negative or positive, please E-Mail me at SmartWebAgent@HOTMAIL.com and let me know what is on your mind.