---

We've been asked this a lot, as we roll-out RISC Analysis DataBox.

---

The sad truth is that the desktop version of RISC Analysis is probably approaching an end-of-life situation in its current format.

This is partly because the computing world has changed significantly over the past several years and we have many clients who need mobile device access.

At this time, the desktop version is tied to the Microsoft Windows platform, which is only really functional as an O/S on desktop/laptops or Surface tablets.

Maintaining both an on-line and a desktop version is problematic because the underlying structure is different. Having said that, the differences are not insurmountable, and the additional overhead of maintaining both is not a major concern.

Also, we are aware that some of our maintenance clients have their own clients who (because of legitimate security concerns) do not allow internet access while on-site.

Therefore, we will continue the desktop version for as long as we can in the VB format.

We are working on a javascript based (full implementation) desktop version.  We just need to balance encryption, compression and speed.

That's the short answer.

If you are interested in a longer, more in-depth in-depth answer regarding the desktop version, see below.

---

The biggest impediments to a continued desktop version are caused by Microsoft, for two different reasons.

First, the underlying database for RISC Analysis is an MS-Access mdb using the ms-access run-time executible. More specifically, it is an Access 97 database using VB5.

Why on earth are you still using that?

Good question. We have several reasons, most of which are more technical than we need to get into here.

To be honest, we would use a later version if Microsoft actually addressed the problems each subsequent release of ms-access created. Quite frankly, VB6 in Access 2000 is much better than VB5 in A97, and there some benefits to .Net as the coding language used in later versions.

But, bottom line is that A97 continued to be mostly less problematic, and could do some things that later versions could not.

Today, the biggest issue with switching to a newer version is the run-time executable, which is required to drive the code and the database.

With A97, the run-time is about 2mb. For A2016, it is over 200mb for the 32-bit version and over 300mb for the 64-bit version.   That's over 10 times the actual data!

Additionally, any post Access 2010 runtime is not comaptible with Microsoft Office 365 (with the same version number). Does Microsoft really expect us to dictate that a client having switched to Office 365 has to change back to retail Office?

For our purposes, while we would love to use some of the newer functionality of later versions, access97 does what we need it to do, and it does it well.

We constantly look at other relational database offerings as a replacement, but none of them are as good as MS-Access.

So, we are still using Access 97, and the first impediment we see from Microsoft is driver support.

Since Windows 8, Microsoft have stated that office97 drivers and dlls are not supported on any O/S above Win7. Although, if one really qualifies this, Microsoft say that the drivers are not technically supported but are still allowed at this time. But, Microsoft reserves the right delete unsupported drivers.

If Microsoft ever do pull the drivers, and in the absense of a decent non Microsoft Desktop Relational Database, then the desktop version of RISC Analysis will be done.

The second impediment to a continued desktop version of RISC is connected to Microsoft's rather ambiguous statements regarding third party software, and Windows itself.

Third Party Software

In early 2016, we saw a statement from a Microsoft exec stating that ultimately, Windows 10 would be an 'App Store' based solution for third party software, whereby all software would only be available from the Microsoft App Store. Microsoft's fee for App Store content (like Apple) is around 30%.

As much as I would love to give Microsoft 30% of our revenue for doing nothing, we kinda need that for things like groceries and health insurance. We don't even make 30% net.

Windows itself

In a similar Microsoft musing at around the same time, the MS statemanet was that ultimately Windows would be an SaaS offering. SaaS is Software as a Service. For example, Office 365 is a SaaS offering.

With SaaS, you do not install software to a local drive. Everything is 'in the cloud', which means that it is parked on a server somewhere else and you pay a subscription for access to the program - in this case, Windows itself.

At the time, I thought that was a bullshit notion because if the O/S is in the cloud, then every document that you create is either in the cloud, or is at least propagated to 'the Cloud'.

Who in their right mind would allow potentially confidential information to be just parked on some other guy's computer? (and mostly unencrypted).

Apparently, a lot of people. A few weeks ago, Microsoft rolled out some Windows 10 SaaS offerings.

If, let's say in 3 or 4 years, Microsoft Windows is only available as a Cloud Based SaaS offering, and all 3rd party software is consequently limited to what they allow, then we, I guess like most Independent Software Vendors, will no longer be able to offer our unique products for the Windows O/S.

On the other hand, if the Linux guys ever collectively get their crap together, and offer an O/S which does not require command line gobbledy-gook to install a driver or program, then maybe they will be ready to take over.

I'm not ragging on Linux but, yes, while it is okay for geeks and semi geeks, Aunt Milly can't be using a command prompt to do something which should have a GUI to handle.

Msg to Linux. Quit being so geek proud and provide more user friendly methods!

---