Dear child, the use of various legal language statements doesn't make one's code "suck" (I can even point to lots of code that fails to use those statements that aren't worth spitting on), nor is it the fault of programmers who use the 60% of VB 6 that is no longer compatible with VB.Net.
One major reason to use the Goto command is in establishing VB 6 error detection and correction routines. For VB.Net the entire error handling system has been forcefully changed, with the old VB 6 method no longer supported BY DESIGN.
I don't like your Blame the Victim mentality. It goes to the heart of why people such as yourself should remain unemployed and bitter.
If the shoe was on the other foot, and Sun came out with a Java compiler or interpreter that didn't support 60% of legacy code from previous versions of Java, you and people with your child-like mindset would be cheering in the streets at how Sun wasn't smart-enough to make a backwards compatible compiler.
Likewise, no one would cheer a new C++ compiler that couldn't compile 60% of existing C++ code, yet that's what you are trying to do when you pretend that it isn't Microsoft's fault that VB.Net will only compile 40% of existing VB 6 code.
Why, if your code wasn't compiled, then it must be your fault, your silly mind blurts out. Your code must suck.
Sigh. Corporate America doesn't need such technical Yes-Men. We've already got too many of those in management.
Oh, and by the way, your claim at the top of this post is balderdash. If you needed to "convert" your 25,000 LOC VB 6 program in order to get the VB.Net environment to accept it, then by definition your code has had changes made to it (in stark contrast to your amatuerish cries that your code didn't need "changes").
In any Mission Critical environment running any formal testing methodology, those changes alone (in the conversion) would mandate full-scale system-level re-testing.
Your continuing narcissistic use of "child", and your continuing references that you are the older, wiser person among us really don't do much for your credibility, considering that you are neither.
Now for a lesson in reality. Visual Basic .NET is a NEW Visual Basic. Perhaps Microsoft could have called it another name, but, once again, let us educate you, dear "child". See, many things in life are given names for marketing purposes that are the same for prior, and accepted, products. Cars are a good example. Does the 1972 Nova really have interchangeable parts with the 1986 Nova? Nope. The latter is a Toyota product. Visual basic .NET shares many traits with Visual basic 6.0 more than it doesn't. Even ADO.NET is not compatible with ADO 2.7, but they share significant similarities.
There are far better reasons to continue the naming of a product more than there are to change it. There are business reasons that trump your personal, and ignorant, technical desires. grow up.