Just for the record: Windows Live Writer builds were released before the new Zune software (tried it, it’s pretty awesome!); but that’s a moot point seeing as the MCE shell is .NET as was pointed out in your comment and other’s.

Expression Blend is like Visual Studio: it relies heavily on those technologies, but it’s not written in them.

Media Center was the first consumer product to be written in .NET - since it shipped in 2003. You can argue that it’s a part of Windows, but it is most certainly a product.

The new Zune software is based on Media Center, and it’s also .NET.

Expression Blend is also based on .NET (and WPF), but I’m not sure if you can call it “consumer”.

Heck, I saw a .NET application at the dentist today, and I’m working on one professionally (ASP.net) right now.

You have to understand - .NET 1.0 sucked, and 1.1 was still pretty incomplete. It wasn’t until .NET 2.0 came out in 2005 that I believe the framework became ready for prime-time.

What you’re suggesting seems more than possible, and it does look like all the tools you’d need are there even.

From Daniel Moth’s page:

Q4. No offense to web people and script fans, but can I not write these in binary code?
A4. Of course you can use ActiveX. You may lose the simplicity of deployments but you gain all the richness of ActiveX technology. Follow the link for more on gadgets with activex.

Q5. How about .NET code and in particular WPF?
A5. While originally this was the plan, regrettably the feature had to be cut (and will hopefully re-appear in a future version). There are a few samples of using WPF with gadgets but they are more a proof of concept rather than an attractive (or a supported) scenario. One such example (via an XBAP) is here.

Writing gadgets that use ActiveX controls: http://blogs.msdn.com/sidebar/archive/2006/09/28/775835.aspx

WPF Gadgets: http://blogs.msdn.com/karstenj/archive/2006/10/09/activex-wpf-gadget.aspx

The latter isn’t a viable option though.

Working with ActiveX and Windows/MSN Messenger: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa164953(office.10).aspx

It’s certainly not a trivial task, but it can theoretically be done.

It wouldn’t be any managed code though (unless you wanted it for proof-of-concept, because it adds a hell of a lot more work rather than relieving you of it).

But like you said, Chris, this is something that the Windows Live Messenger team would be in the best position to release

perhaps microsoft needs to first release a activex component for msn messenger, but i thought there already was one. Then a javascript script running in the ie host in the sidebar can communicate with the activex and display whatever you need it to.

Perhaps it can already be done, but it needs a creative developer to sit down and do it?

Basically - it’s real easy to screw a system over with a single line of bad (accidental or otherwise) code in C#, but in JavaScript it’s virtually impossible - that’s what makes Firefox extensions so safe compared to ActiveX components.

JavaScript is limited to its container (the sidebar) unlike C# which could be used to do a lot more. While it would give developers infinite potential, perhaps it was a security burden that Microsoft did not want to shoulder? (I can imagine the Slashdot headlines already

To the best of my knowledge, some parts of tools and utilities that ship with Windows Vista are written in .NET, but I personally wouldn’t count them as .NET packages shipping out of MS simply because they’re not independent programs.

Chris, if what you say is true, then here is the million dollar question: If the sidebar is written in .NET, and .NET makes it real easy to extend programs and functionality via interfacing, then why are we forced to use pitiful “programming languages” like JavaScript to write the widgets? Imagine how much better the sidebar could be (and how much higher the signal:noise ratio would be!) if widgets were written in C# and not JS!

At any rate, thanks for this write-up — it certainly is interesting to see a refreshing look on the path .NET is taking, and especially when it comes to the Microsoft side of things.

(PS: Let me second CG’s opinion here - great work on WLW, Joe & the rest of the team!)

I feel the same way about C# and Microsoft .NET too - it is so much faster and easier to write good code with C# than with C++.

Steve–there weren’t enough testing resources to certify whether all the Windows Live apps ran well under Server 2003 or XP x64. We do run under Vista x64 (the previous beta did not, but that was just because of a plain old bug in the installer which was fixed before final).

Solution is to run the installer on a compatible PC, let it extract the MSI to your temp folder, then run the MSI on any .NET-based computer of your liking - it’ll install just fine then.

Running it as I write this from Windows Server 2008 Nov. CTP.