The moniker profusion confusion re Windows "Live" and Windows ".Net" before it stems from the fact that the concepts are mind-bending oxymorons from the get-go when their Windows OS tie-in is factored in.What the heck is the point in running lightweight, lithe, always on, always-updated apps that are tied completely to a desktop-anchored operating system that isn't lightweight, isn't lithe, isn't always on, and isn't always updated?The only thing "clear" about .Net and Live is that they embody an "oh darn we'll do web-based apps but only as long as these all are built to require our cash cow Windows OS to run at all" philosophy.In other words, .Net and .Live are the latest mechanisms aimed at preserving what someone once called "the applications barrier to entry." They moreover sit bully-like in the space that third-party web-centric apps might otherwise emerge to occupy. They need not be a success; they only need occupy the seat so no one else takes it.Small wonder by the way that VB6 developers have been loathe to leap to VB ".Net" (which has lately dropped the .Net moniker), because one might well be leaping into a sandbox that has no future other than to stave off web-centric Windows application competition that might otherwise leap the applications barrier to entry.Right now that barrier is pretty high indeed, as one CAN build web-centric apps, but there is little point as to be truly Windows conforming, they also must bring much of the heavy Windows baggage along with them in requiring Windows first in user terms (for most practical purposes). This is a little like having the right to go by kayak while being required to take the Queen Mary II in tow if doing so. Now tell me, who wants to do that?

They just have the name wrong.

I didn't get the "Live" name in the beginning, but I suppose it has some meaning. I think the intent behind it was to connote "dynamic", since Windows Live and Office Live are meant to be always up to date with information and applications ("gadgets" I guess they're called?). Microsoft should be careful not to extend the metaphore too far. You are right that Microsoft did this with .Net, but they also did it with "Active" and "X". They wanted to rename COM and OLE to "ActiveX" back in the '90s, which didn't entirely succeed. They named their hardware acceleration software technology "DirectX" (I don't know if this naming trend had anything to do with the name "XBox"). They named their directory server "Active Directory". Though it did seem they really went berzerk over ".Net".

I'd like to address some of PolarUpgrade's points, because they're inaccurate. First of all, Microsoft announced from the get-go that the Live services will be accessible from any browser. Secondly, while .Net only runs on Windows servers and desktops, if you create web apps. in ASP.Net, they are accessible from, again, any browser. One of the innovative features of ASP.Net, which has been there from the beginning, is it automatically adjusts the markup that is sent to the browser, depending on which one the user is running. The same goes for mobile web development. If someone accesses a mobile-designed web app. from a web-enabled phone or mobile device, the .Net runtime will detect which device they are using and adjust the markup accordingly. This is a vast improvement over what used to exist, where web designers literally had to write code to detect what browser the end user was running, write different versions of web markup, and write code to send the appropriate version to the client when it was requested. The same went for mobile web apps., which was much worse in this regard. Before you cast aspersions at what Microsoft has done of late, I'd suggest you check your facts.

Well, you merely restated the problem, mmille10, in conceding that "...while .Net only runs on Windows servers and desktops, if you create web apps. in ASP.Net, they are accessible from...any browser."The problem is that what grows out of Windows tends to focus on what Windows offers, and it's highly unlikely that most common users would care that the Windows-tied-Internet of .Net/Live can be reached from "any browser"--because the gotcha is that it is only gonna work best if the "any browser" is running on top of Windows, in terms of most end users. That is because most end users are Windows-only users. Linux end users won't see ASP.Net apps catering much to their Linux databases and their other Linux desktop apps in terms of connected functionality, and so won't generally be connecting much to webware via this "other browser" rubric.It's a bit of a red herring to say that .Net/Live are okay because they are "any browser" accessible, when the function of .Net/Live in part is to shift the ground away from the browser as a threat to the applications barrier to entry. Now the batteground is webware and not the browser.The real issue is that as with the Explorer/Netscape dynamic--Windows is bound tightly to webware via .Net/Live, just as Windows was tightly bound to web browsing via Internet Explorer.The effective tie thus remains to Windows, because it is most unlikely that we shall see ASP.Net being used to front Linux-based applications as webware. The fact that .Net/Live lives in Windows means it will tend to produce applications that tie into Windows in some way.