So now it's April 2003 and I'm hearing that .NET is dead--that Microsoft will continue downplaying both the name .NET and the technologies behind it. You can find hints all around that this ".NOT" strategy might be happening right now. The 64-bit versions of Windows Server 2003 (once called Windows .NET Server, by the way) contain absolutely no .NET bits at all: No .NET Framework and no ASP .NET. Exchange Server 2003, the company's next major messaging server, contains no .NET. Office 2003, the premier office productivity suite, contains XML functionality only in the high-cost business versions and contains few native .NET features. In the biggest year ever of new product introductions from Microsoft, few if any of its products promote .NET, its supposed vision for the future.
I can't say that I follow this stuff closely enough to know what's going on; still, omitting.NET support from the 64 bit platform does seem curious. Is it work delayed because MS thinks that 64 bit migration will be slow, or is it a de-emphasis of .NET? If it's the latter, it could easily be an issue with the huge installed base of VB developers not wanting to make (what sounds like) a difficult move to VB.NET. Whatever the reason, it's interesting - and bears some watching.