>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
Jim,

We can easily do VFP front end to VFP server right now in VFP 5.0 and it gets better in 6.0. We can even do VFP Front end to VFP middle tier to VFP back end if we like.

Security on dbf's is not of any interest to me. If I need security I need a database server, which ever one I may choose. VFP 6.0 has a meriad of new features, new commands, new methods, besides the MTS stuff. The MTS stuff is crippled in terms of scalability, so what, it is the first time the product has even been able to play in that sand box at all.

I know your position and I know you want to see the product get better. But why can't we VFP developers take at least a week or two to enjoy the new stuff we got before bitching about what we didn't get.

We will never get objectified menus because menus are going to the ActiveX controls of the coolbar type. There is planned a general purpose report writer for all of the Visual Studio.

Don't we at least get the revel in our good fortune that ther eis a VFP 6.0 and that is has some nice new fetures in it before we satart the death march songs again?