I'm in agreement with you, Victor.

What we've been fed by this "announcement" is whatever we (individually) interpret it to be. There's no "there" there!!!

All it really says is that for some period of time in the future there will be an add-on (maybe more than 1?) to VFP9, and while that is happening the VFP Team - what's left of them - will also be working in the .NET arena.

Now one could put his rosy shades on and say to himself "Wow-weeee! That's a sure sign that .NET will move towards the VFP model, and that's a good thing.".
But KenL's opened kimono can also be read as 'the VFP Team - what's left of it - is going to be very busy in the .NET arena so the add-on being planned can't be delivered for 18 months'. Imagine... an add-on that will require only a small percentage of the testing that would be incumbent with a full new release, yet it will take 18 months to deliver!!!

KenL has said his objective is to be fully open with the community. That being the case, you should certainly get a response from him that fully clarifies the muddle we now see.

I read the statement as "plausible deniability"... it's full of implications that can later be explained as 'I never said that'.

Until Ken clarifies I'm afraid it looks like the proverbial "bill of goods". Anyone wanna buy a bridge in New York City?????




>>>If its VFP10, say its VFP10 - if its a completley new product - say so - if it's an add-on or extension to VFP9 then say so.... don't give us a bunch of mumbo-jumbo b.s. that answers fewer questions than it creates.
>>
>>It's pretty plain from this sentence in the Roadmap that Sedna is neither a new version number nor an upgrade, but instead an add-on of some kind:
>>
>>Sedna is currently scheduled to be released in the first half of 2007 and will require Visual FoxPro 9.0.
>
>I suspect you're right - that this is an add-on of some kind. As far as it being pretty plain I'll respectfully disagree with you there.
>If it was pretty plain then the sentence would say something like "this is an add-on, not a new version or upgrade". Micro$oft has intentionly worded it the way they did because a lot of people will look at that sentence a say ... oohh.. VFP10 - its an upgrade - only way to get it is to have VFP9.
>Extreamly poor practice of trying to confuse people and/or trick them into buying something believing that they'll have to have it to get the next version.
>I think Ken should step up to the plate here and claify all this here, in his blog, and on the MS website.