>>
>>One of the first things Robert did when he joined Microsoft about 2 years ago was to get rid of the xBase title. xBase indicates old, outdated technology...which is NOT what VFP is. If this is still being used, especially by Microsoft, he needs to educate someone...hopefully with a big stick.
>
>Craig, my friend, I hate to say this, but both you and Ryan are "offBase" here.:-) Whether we like it or not the language (which is what ther term was referring to) is xBase. Neither you, nor I, nor Ryan, nor Microsoft can change that without completely getting rid of the product as we know it. It can be a positive as well as a negative. You can market it towards those who use other xBase products.
>
>While Microsoft has attempted to change the perception of VB, it remains that BASIC is still an acronym, and the B stands for Beginner's. You don't hear VBer's complaining about that.

I agree with you that one can't deny the XBase heritage. The expressiveness of Xbase is an advantage for us. However, to mention nothing about the OOP and RAD features, and to say that VFP is only for workgroups (which is what the summary sheet from MS says) makes it sound like VFP is really FoxPro 2.6 and used only in minor solutions. Also, the 'open letter to the FoxPro community' said that MS would downplay the term Xbase in the future. All I want is consistent, accurate information to be used when MS or others describe the products for comparison purposes. I feel the treatment of VFP in this sheet is very unfair.

Love the puns, by the way. :-)

P.S. It also looks like other parts of Visual Studio are encroaching on VFP's turf. With ADO, the Visual Database Tools, etc. it looks like the best features of VFP are being renamed (like ADO), componentized, and moved into separate pieces in VS. It gives the impression that MS is trying to marginalize VFP more and more.

Check out http://www.visualstudio6.com/whatsnew.htm

Keep in mind that this is coming from the editors of VBPJ.