If the application is well engineered and architected (even if it isn't strictly n-tier) then it should straight forward (as opposed to 'easy') to port the app to .NET. If the app is spaghetti then it will be a nightmare to port.

I don't think this issue is any different than it was for porting a FoxPro for Windows/DOS app to VFP 3.0.

I have my doubts about the ZDNet article because in some places it's not clear whether the author is talking about the .NET Framework or .NET servers. The comment ".net isn't just a new version of Windows" was said by whom? The analyst for Gartner or the author of the ZD article? I've found ZD's development articles less than useful in the past.

Roger

>In the latest edition of e-Business Advisor is an article titled "Ramping up to .NET" (link at http://e-businessadvisor.com/Articles.nsf/aid/COLEC178 does not include the full story). The subtitle is "Advisor interviews Prashant Sridharan, Visual Studio .NET Product Manager."
>
>One of the questions posed was the following:
>
>Q: Does the syntax of the language figure in when you're porting an application to .NET? Is it possible to "port" an application to .NET?
>
>A: You'll find you can't simply port a Visual Basic 6.0 or traditional VB application to .NET. You can either use a conversion tool we include with the product, or you can go through the code manually to change it over to .NET code. The syntax has changed enough that you can't just copy and paste into .NET and have it magically start working. In the end, porting code is porting code -- you still have to do some work.
>
>Fair enough...
>
>Now look at this link again: http://www.dotnetwire.com/frame_redirect.asp?newsid=3039
>
>Typically, moving to a new software release isn't so costly. But, warns Gartner's Mark Driver, .Net isn't just a new release of Windows.
>
>"People mistakenly assume the cost of upgrading will somehow be the same as going from one version of a well-established product to another. That's definitely not the case (with .Net)," said Driver, who devised the cost model.
>
>Ari Bixhorn, Microsoft's product manager for Visual Basic.Net, disputed Gartner's conclusions. He said most conversions to .Net are about 95 percent error-free, meaning they can be completed at a cost much lower than what Gartner estimates.
>
>So which MSFT representative do you believe? Prashant Sridharan? Ari Bixhorn? More importantly, why is MSFT taking diametrically opposed positions on the same issue?????
>
>Bill Anderson