>---- SNIP
>>
>>Marketing plays a part, but there are other things too. VFP has to be a good player in Visual Studio and many of the items that are put in VFP 6.0 are just for that. Along the same lines, there are many things that people have been asking to have for years that aren't there (ex: OOP menus & reports). I suspect that we'll see some common things in Visual Studio for doing this and that's why the VFP team hasn't addressed them.
>--- End snip (and start VENT)
>
>Craig,
>
>But really, it is time *we* all stopped making excuses for MS and the VFP team and it is time for them to start speaking for themselves!
>
>Ya know, poor ol VFP has to kow-tow just to keep alive in MS. Poor ol VFP has to be a "good player" in Visual Studio. Poor ol VFP has to keep SQL-Server sales in mind when they think up things to leave out of the product. Poor ol VFP only has so much advertising budget. Poor ol VFP yadda-yadda-yadda!
>
>Well, some of us are POOR OL USERS! Some of US think it's time that WE MATTERED, at least some!
>I am quite happy for VFP to be a "good player" in Visual Studio (or anywhere else) as long as VFP cares to be a "good player" for its USERS TOO.
>
>Just as VFP 5 didn't *really* deliver "server" support in the broadest sense (but only in a highly restrictive sense), so VFP 6 is now appearing to be less than "fully" MTS. What good does it do to go on fooling the USER community like this??? Sure, those of you who are full MS adherents argue that these are positive things and moving in the right direction and that all will be well one day.
>But some of us have a little less patience, and we pay our bucks too! Bucks that have just as much value as yours.
>
>We can wait 'till hell freezes over before we see objectified menus or reports, but for some that's OK because its *probably* because Visual Studio is going to do something "generic" about them!
>Look, I don't even particularly care about those two items myself, but lots and lots of USERS *DO*. Are they to wait forever????
>I want a VFP-to-VFP "server" capability - something which I bet is DEAD **EASY** for them to do, but they won't. Why?? Well, it look like its to protect SQL Server sales. *IF* it is, then that's the lousiest reasoning in the world, and makes a DoJ Inquiry justified all by itself!
>
>End VENT
>
>Cheers,
>Jim N


Have you ever sent in this enhancement request? Don't tell me that others have so you don't have to. The fact of the matter is that being a good player with Visual Studio will take priority...and rightfully so, IMO. If VFP doesn't play well, it WILL disappear. As for something that is "DEAD **EASY**", you really have no idea what it would take. The VFP team has a list of requests and requirements that they look at for each release. They prioritize them, then throw out those that they don't have time to get in. You've said in another thread that you'd be happy with a VFP only world....but I wouldn't and many people would agree with me. The fact is, VFP is part of VS..and we need to quit whining about what we don't have and start using things that are there.