This is just something that seem to be causing confusion among some people. When MS came out with the four new components to the .Net Framework which are.. Windows Communication Foundation, Windows Presentation Foundation, Windows Workflow Foundation and Windows Cardspace. I'm guessing they didn't want to give it a spiffy name like ".Net Advanced Features Pack" but they couldn't exactly just slip it into the 2.0 framework then called it .Net 2.5 (cause usually a point release doesn't come with new features... I think)
So they decided to call the new modules the .Net Framework 3.0, and I was fine with that.
Until now when a client is telling me that they want me to upgrade an old application written in 1.1 to 3.0. I keep telling them that they are not using 3.0 bits in the program, but they keep telling me that the MS consultant that talked to them recommended them to use the latest version of the framework and not use a product at the end of their lifecycle (ie. .Net 2.0 in this case)
I wonder if the guy knows that because .Net 2.0 is included in Windows Vista support will last as long as Windows Vista is supported (if i remember how that's calculated) in this case.. 12th April 2011 so how the heck does a 4 year lifespan make .Net 2.0 an end of lifecycle product?