Why not just ask the people what kind of cars they drive? If they give you any answer besides Ford Model T, point out that the Model T worked fine. Didn't mean they were efficient, or good.

>You are certainly right. The word "case" has been around quite a while though. I can't remember when it was added but I'm sure Tamar knows <g>. Ironically, the application WAS tested in VFP 9--by me and by them in 3 months of parallel tests. The only thing that really didn't work--and this is what prompted the move to VFP9 in the first place, was the Word Basic code. That actually failed under Windows XP and was converted to VBA syntax. There were also a couple of missing prgs in the source code that I had to recreate in order to compile the EXE. Everything seemed to work perfectly, except...
>
>Every now and then, little flaky things happen that make me, and them, uncomfortable. I rarely miss a chance when responding to one of these to reiterate the need to rewrite the app, citing greatly improved data management, proper use PEMs, the object model, classes, etc. (and, left unmentioned: income for me and a much easier job of support <g>.) I advised them in writing of the application's multiple "issues" at the outset. But, it's hard to sell since the client doesn't immediately see "added value" in my proposal. When they suggested moving the data to SQL Server last February--something I would ordinarily support wholeheartedly--I had to advise against it, given the present code. Array elements change type and/or value almost on a whim. It gives me nightmares thinking about the potential problems when those are stored to SQL Server!
>
>Thus far, data loss has been minimal so the client hasn't felt much pain--and when they do, I'm sure they think it's my fault. After all, there were no problems except the Word Basic issue before the move to VFP 9. I'd love to find a way to PROVE that rewriting the application would solve all the problems. Without a documented cause and effect, it's been very hard to do.