Excellent point about slowing the rate of change not being in Microsoft's benefit ... constancy does not sell new versions does it? I can only hope that C# (the control language) will remain relatively constant and my yearly and ongoing learning will take place in the realm of the objects that make up the .NET Framework.

There is only one thing that doesn't fit with this line of thought ... currently, the .NET framework is free. We also know that MS is pushing .NET unmercifully ... they want it to take off BAD. What happens if they do succeed and then, when .NET is 80% of all MS based corporate development (arbitrary number selected by me) they implement a pricing structure on the UPGRADES to the .NET framework. The point being is that companies that don't want to upgrade don't have to. But the companies that do want to upgrade (to meet the demands of a new hardware architecture for example) might have to pay a royalty for the new version ... there is an interesting revenue stream.

Thanks for the thought provoking conversation.

CT