>>So one might correctly conclude that all that .NET really is is:
>>1) the addition of more, and especially more public, facilities to the base OSs;
>>2) the revision of significant portions of the OSs;
>>3) the introduction of a few new tools to better exploit the above-mentioned things.
>
>I look at the .NET Framework like its the next version of the Windows API, but instead of the overly complicated and dirty API thats been pushed to the limit for years, it's clean and takes full advantage of OOP.
>
>Craig says it doesn't change the OS, but for all practical purposes, I say it does. Just point out where in .NET apps you need to use the Windows API. There are very few occasions (but you may bump into one or two until the framework matures).

ChuckU provided a good sketch for me.
I think that Chuck's words and my initial concept (above) still fit, as I think you are also saying.
I might have been smarter, though, to change #2 above to say 'alternatives for significant portions of the OSs', allowing for APIs and such to continue to exist but for there to be equivalent (.NET) options too.

Cheers