It seems that every other day I have a discussion with someone on the topic of Rich Desktop vs Web 2.0 (also known as Smart Client applications vs Web applications, Rich vs Reach, and several other names).  The idea is that browser-based applications are getting good enough that you don't need locally-installed software. I've tried living on web-only versions of certain applications -- I never want to try that again.  The power of having rich user interfaces, offline data, and complete use of the local processing power is something I do not want to live without. That doesn't mean that web applications aren't good - they come in handy sometimes.

Specifically, I like the approach that provides a rich, reach, and mobile version of an application. 

For example, Outlook is available as:

• Office Outlook 2007 (best option, period - fast, works offline, search is amazingly good, etc)
• Outlook Web Access (great for getting a nice form factor when I don't have my laptop)
• Outlook Mobile Access (great when I only have my Windows Mobile phone)

Looking at these three options for email, I realize that I use the rich client about 70% of the time, the mobile client about 25% of the time, and the web client about 5% of the time. That varies for applications outside of email -- for example, I use the rich IM client (Office Communicator) about 90% of the time, the mobile client about 10% of the time, and never use the web client.

Steve Richards does a good job of explaining why he prefers his desktop over a pure Web 2.0 environment: http://steves.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/12/8/2559313.html

I echo his sentiment that "...web 2.0 is a complement to the desktop, not a replacement."

What do you think?  Will Web 2.0 take over completely?  I can't possibly see giving up my rich experience to browser-only applications.