>That's Microsoft marketing speak for you. Originally the pre-beta stuff called the CLR COM+ 2.0. When they refer to COM+ they are really saying .Net.

Man, I hate marketing people. Sure would have been easier for everyone to just call it COM+ 2.0.

>
>This is a stupid move on MS because these things are now encroaching on something completely different ( the various COM+ services that Win2000 provides today ). To be honest I'd say the MS marketing folks haven't figured out how to market yet. Imagine that.

LOL

>
>I can tell you for sure though that .Net components are not based on COM (no registry entries for example). You can expose them as COM objects with an additional step which creates a wrapper object, but that's not the same thing.

Doesn't COM+ use something different now? I've read a couple of places about components using the COM+ catalog instead of the registry.