>Mike;
>
>There is a obvious lack of communications going on here but that seems to be something not unusual. I would not expect any product to be backward compatible when adding a new feature or functionality.
>
>Vb 7 is not yet a product available to the public and the way I understood Craig’s comment was because of .NET technology a developer would have to “rewrite applications or rearchitect many of your applications”.
>
>The structure of the sentence lead me to believe there was an expectation that .NET technology would require going back to applications already created. I see no value in that unless the client is paying for new Microsoft Technology. I have been looking for such clients but in my 18 years of software development, I must say that I have not yet found one. Clients just are not interested in updating existing applications just because Microsoft has introduced a new acronym.
>
>Personally, if I wanted to use .NET technology I would be doing so with a new application and only then when I thought the tools and technology were stable. Using the latest greatest technology does not always mean success. Version 1.0 of any product is suspect in my book.
>
>Tom

See the following devx article. It makes some sense of what Craig is referring to: http://www.devx.com/upload/free/features/vbpj/2000/11nov00/pr0011/pr0011.asp