>There's an interesting article posted on the Ziff-Davis web site. It's titled ".Net has Microsoft Tongue Tied" and can be found at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-948838.html .
>
>This article talks about the marketing missteps with .Net. The points mentioned in this online article are so close to my opinions that I could have written it.
>
>Here are some of the nuggets in the article:
>
>"Confusion has beset the (.Net) initiative almost since its inception, but today--after two years and billions of dollars in development--Microsoft's public handling of .Net could stand as a case study in what not to do in a high-profile marketing campaign."
>
>"The bungled marketing moves are even more egregious considering the importance Microsoft originally attached to the .Net initiative as the company's bet-the-business strategy."
>
>"The concept behind the initiative was vague from the outset, but it was made even more confusing by the use of the ".Net" nomenclature in many other Microsoft efforts."
>
>"Microsoft sent out two messages at the same time. People tied the ideas together, because they both had the .Net name"..."That kind of branding overlap is an obvious blunder to marketing veterans."
>
>"People have heard about .Net. But...it is so ill-defined, and the brand name is so lousy, that for all the publicity they have gotten, it hasn't done them any good--because it hasn't been positioned in anyone's mind."
>
>"Nevertheless, Microsoft executives acknowledge that the company overused the .Net name."
>
>"The recent .Net conference, held at company headquarters in Redmond, Wash., did little to clear up confusion, analysts said."
>
>Bill Anderson

And yet, for all of .NET's vagueness, the one thing that Microsoft went out of its way to make abundantly clear is that VFP is not a part of it.

Mike