Interesting observations Bill, especially regarding the possible future seat licensing. I was just briefly scanning the computer help wanted section
of the Sunday KC newspaper. That section occupied less than 1/2 page of space. Back in the heyday of a few years ago there would have been at least 4 full pages. BTW, there were no ads for VB.NET, C# or .NET.

A friend of mine worked for a Fortune 500 company and as of a few weeks ago they were all still using Windows 95 and Office 97. I am personally using Windows NT on a 333 MhZ PC with 384 MB of RAM. This combination works just great for developing and delivering applications in VFP 7.

Things have changed since the idea of creating the .NET framework. The economy has contracted significantly. As a result I do agree that it will take a bit longer for .NET to become a dominant force for non ASP.NET related applications.

>>You have a point related to development machines for .NET and perhaps for machines to run .NET Winforms apps.
>>
>>However, ASP.NET certainly can be (and is being) easily implemented today without any additional requirements on user machines. .NET is going somewhere already in that category.
>
>Fair enough. I assume, though, that this doesn't require serious changes to the client side, just the server -- leading back to my original point...
>
>>I think that information agrees with your point that very little is being deployed so far, with the exception of ASP.NET apps. However, I don't agree that .NET is going nowhere. It's going somewhere, but has lots of inertia to break.
>
>To repeat, .NET is going nowhere in the short to medium term time frame (IMO, and a broad generalization, for that matter). Long term, who knows...
>
>Another of my concerns will be M$FT possibly changing the dance steps. Whose to say, for instance, that the next version of .NET won't require all clients to upgrade to WinXP? Or the version after that will require annual client seat licenses?
>
>Bill Anderson