Jim, my comments are interspersed in your original message.

JN>The larger point is that MS appears to ignore the needs and wishes of the masses, in favour of who-knows-what!!!???

Who are the masses, Jim. Do I count as one of the masses? What about Jim B and John P. Do they count? We all have a different opinion. I know that MS, for a fact, *does* listen to user requests. Just because I didn't get all my requests doesn't mean I wasn't listened to.

>
JN>My particular issue is *not* (repeat: not) a SQL-Server capability within VFP. It is a VFP-to-VFP communication capability which includes
JN>1) Client passes SQL/View stmt and gets back record(s);
JN>2) the 'server' end can handle several VFP clients simultaneously.
>
JN>In other words, none of the power/security/etc of SQL Server.

OK, and you can't do that now? I can think of a way to do that right now. In 5 it would be a bit kludgy. In 6 it is less so. In 6.x, with more ADO improvements, it will be even less so. But you can do it.

Jim, what would you like to do (a concrete example) that you can't?


JN>I have been planning, ever since VFP6. was announced, to buy the *next* release of Visual Studio. Now it seems I will be waiting until at least September. And I just finished reading that SQL Server rel. 7 *may* be released next March (1999). These are prime examples of why it is my preference to try to restrict my stuff to as few independent products as possible.

I hear this. I don't think that expectation is reasonable any more. Software requirements are getting much too complex for that. Would you want MS to include all of Word in VFP (and vice versa?)

>
>By the way, I looked up ADO in VFP 5.x Help and came up dry. I wonder why???

OK, I'll bite. Why?