>You're quite welcome, Denis. We would be remiss if we didn't also thank you for now apparently (per thread #1019357) starting to consider upgrading from VFP 7.0 to 9.0. MS should probably just go back to skipping the even-numbered versions (e.g., 4.0) altogether, don't you think?

For those interested in trivia history, the reason skipped VFP 4.0 and went from 3.0 right to 5.0 was because at the time, VB 4.0 was already out and VB 5.0 was next, and Microsoft did not want to have a VFP 4.0 release when VB 5.0 was released implying it was somehow older than VB, etc. There were specifications for a VFP 4.0, and I have an old printed document in my office that says VFP 4.0 on it, but it was simply renamed to VFP 5.0 to be in sync with VB 5.0 at the time.