Jim,

My point is was not intended to make excuses. I guess I am stating that with all the options
that I currently have and getting that I feel that there has been significant
enhancements to the product. In fact I continue to try to utilize more and
more of the capabilities of the language everyday and still be productive
on the projects I am working on. I have worked in the Corporate world and
know that there is give and take on what goes in and what gets left out. There
has to be a budget for the Fox teams resources. What would you have
left out of VFP6 to achieve what you would have required for the database?
No I am definitely opposed in placing the future of primary tool that I use to
making a living to a vote of Fox development world. I have seen what
enhancement by consensus does. Normally this results of focusing in the
present or the past and giving very little ehmphasis on the future.

I guess I like the half full versus the half empty approach. I have a whole list
of things I would have like to have seen but I sure like a whole lot of stuff
in VFP6 that was not on my list. I still want to see my enhancements but
right now I need to concentrate my efforts on what I was given. If this makes
me an apologist, I don't have a problem with that.

-myron-
================================

>Myron, Here we are again, making excuses on behalf of MS and the VFP team.
>
>It is time they found their voice and gave us some meaningful answers based on facts.
>
>We can all go around in circles with fully UNinformed arguments pro/con anything regarding VFP. You know, MS doesn't really hand out Borwnie-points to those who always write beholdingly about them, much as you might wish tehy do.
>
>Getting specific a little, it might be a "fundamental change to FoxPro" if security were implemented the way YOU picture it. But maybe there are several ways, and maybe the need is far more basic than you envision. Jumping to conclusions just to 'give MS an out' doesn't do any of us any good. I know whining doesn't do much either, so if you've got a better idea, I'm happy to listen.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim N
>
>>I am sure that MS does look at many feature requests and due to other products
>>or services available sets a low priority. Also, requests that require a substantial
>>impact on the base product and backwards compatibility they problem place
>>lower on the priority list.
>>