I agree completely. And if you ask any developer of any language there
will always be some feature/change they would like in there product.

How about some of the Beta testers letting the rest of us know what
they have done with the new features.

-myron kirby-
=================================
>>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,
>
>Sometimes a product can only go so far without a major rewrite of its entire internal architecture. I'm sorry if I offend anyone but I find alot of great new stuff in VFP 6.0 that was not in VFP 5.0. Complaining about what isn't there is non-productive to me unless it is in the form of an enhancement request sent to the development team.
>
>Microsoft got where it is under the concept of "good enough" software not great software. Read any of the books about the growth of Micrososft and you will see that point clearly made. For just about any product Microsoft makes one can find a better example from some other vendor. But MS products are good enough and they all come together in one box so we'll use them.
>
>It just is very disappointing to me to see the announcement of a new release, followed not by a discussion of the new features and capabilities and how we cna leverage them but rather by complaints because there's no password protection on the dbc.