>Sorry, but this is not true. Many of us have FEARED that MS was going to kill the fox, but HOPED that this wouldn't happen. And they have given prevalence to their hope. And that's why they continued with the fox.
>
>Had we KNOWN at that time that development would stop in 2007, most of us would have abandoned the fox at that time.
>
>

Peter in my mind there are two situations;

(1) you are a contract or employed programmer, or

(2) you develop off-the-shelf applications in your own business.

In case 1 you should have been learning new technologies long ago in order to maintain your skills to current market trends in order to stay marketable. If you didn't, that's your problem.

In case 2 there are again two sub-options;

(2a) your clients care about the development tool used, or

(2b) your clients don't care about the tool used.

Case 2a is the same as case 1 above i.e. you should have been learning new technologies long ago in order to maintain your skills to current market trends. If you didn't then that's your problem.

In case 2b it doesn't matter what tool you use. So what do you still want?

You want VFP to be stable - it is.

You want VFP to be compatible with the current O/S eg XP and Vista - it is (a few problems to be ironed out in SP2).

You want VFP to have the functionality you require - what else can really be added? It is pretty complete for most apps I would imagine. I don't see many requests in this forum for new functionality.

You want MS support - it is until 2015. But who actually uses MS support anyway? Haven't called them *ever* in 20+ years. I use the UT for support.

What is the problem here? VFP either does the job or not. If it did pre-announcement of eol then it still does post-announcement eol. You should think about which category / case you fit into. I am in 2b so it doesn't matter that VFP9 is eol. The tool works for what I and my customers need. What category are you in?