>>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?
><
>
>
>Pardon me for doing my Jim Nelson impression, but WHAT KIND OF ATTITUDE IS THAT!?
>
>You sound like the wife whose husband gives her an allowance. "Now dear, here's a few dollars. Be happy with the little bit of money I give you. In the meantime, I'll be out buying my mistress a new fur coat." Settle for a few changes, while the lion's share of effort is put into VB and SQL Server, thus making VFP less and less attractive by comparison? I don't think so.
>
>Why should be be satisfied with the fact that VFP exists at all? As loud as Jim can get at times, he has the right idea. We shouldn't settle for anything less than the best product possible. I know that in the grand scheme of things, VFP is the least of Microsoft's concerns. Still, with all the time and money they spend devleoping and marketing VB and SQL Server, we could at least hope for continued imporovements in VFP.
>
>IMHO, Microsoft makes the best software on the market. They didn't get to where they are by resting on their laurels. They did it by constantly pushing, by never settling for "good enough." We, as computer professionals, should do the same.
>
>We should keep pushing for the best products available. Be willing to tell Microsoft what we want, tell them loudly and often. In return, we should reward their efforts by telling our clients, just as loudly and just as often, how good FoxPro is, how well it will solve their business problems.
>
>For the past few months, Microsoft has been courting us with promises. The DevCon was the honeymoon. Now we have to live with the new tools, day in and day out. The honeymoon is over.
>
>Finally, to justify this message's presence on this thread, I think that a database password security is an excellent idea. If VFP is going to get the big-ticket contracts, it needs to step up its security. Going to SQL Server is NOT an acceptable option. That defeats the purpose of the native VFP database.
>
>Bill
Bill,
I agree... up to a point. Yeah, I think we should fight for the best product available. As VFP customers, we should make our preferences, needs and wants crystal clear. We want MS to keep enhancing the product and we want it to be the best development environment on the planet.
But...
How do you define "better?" MS has a vision. Not everything has to be in one box... I need to be able to *do* anything but not necessarily in one product. So, we want secured data. Why is the answer of SQL Server (or even the upcoming Personal SQL) such a bad answer? Yes, I want passwords on VFP databases. But, if anyone voiews VFPs datastore as its prime feature, I think they are missing the boat. Truth be told, if VFP could not read a DBF again, it would still be the best product for database development because of the DML and the fact that we have a data oriented, object oriented language.
So, where is MS working. They are improving VFPs ability to play in the COM sandbox. MTS is here (up to a point). ADO is here and will be getting even better (heck ADO is based on the Fox cursor engine as I understand it). If MS is saying that VFP, when coupled with other products that are focused in another area, is the best database development tool around, I am OK with that.
Let me put it this way. Why not ask MS to put a spreadsheet into VFP? Or how about a word processor? We don't ask for these things because we have never had them and we know that we have Excel and Word (or other COM compliant products) to work with. We have been doing this since DDE came around. When it comes to the data store, so many of us are so married to the DBF that we lose sight of the forest for the trees (my humble opinion only).
Frankly, I think the justification for password control is more useful for enhancing existing systems that creating new ones. If personal SQL has the security I want, I have no problems working with that tool (assuming that it is as easy to use as I need it to be) than the DBF.
JOMO
