---- much snipped
>
>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.
>
Menachem,

Yes, MS has a vision, and frankly they are moving along on its course. But the "vision" and the reality don't always match.

I read a thick tomb called Inside OLE and one of the things I learned was that there are 'standards' aimed at preventing one version of a Control from messing up a prior version of that Control. Yet many often report here of trouble in specifically that area. Now this is at one additional "level". Imagine it when MAJOR components (eg VB, VFP, SQL Server, etc) are *all* at different levels and all using various different Controla all at different levels yet again!
There is real trouble brewing with this approach *OR* a requirement to always stay at the same "level" for all components (making upgrading a nightmare.

Similar to this concept was, believe it or not, tried in the mainframe arena. After several years of trying, IBM gave up the idea. Yes they had the resources and talent to keep plugging away, but ultimately their USERS said ENOUGH! Finally, they listened. The history here (PCs and MS) is going in a similar manner, and really has only survived to date becuase the percentage of CRITICAL production dependent on PCs was minimal. This has turned around now, and soon the PC will be THE production vehicle throughout most of business. Then we shall see who rules the roost. Trust me, the customer will. He/she always does.

Regards,

Jim N