I thought so. That was my point to Peter. He is comparing what happened with VFP - which was never a "strategic" product, with what *could* happen with .NET - which is a strategic product. Apples and oranges.

>I've never seen VFP/Foxpro represented as a "Strategic Product". When Foxpro became a MS product the push was on for VB. It was probably about '98 when recruiters started telling me that if they had a Foxpro position at all, it was to help support the existing Foxpro system while it was being converted. Typically to VB.
>
>There was a story floating around in the late 90s about Bill G getting all bent out of shape when some organization rated development languages. VB got slammed in the ratings. Rumor has it that Bill G was livid that VB finished so far down in the ratings. Someone in the meeting mentioned that Foxpro was much better in the areas that VB got slammed for. And he then asked for Foxpro to be pushed more.
>
>But i never saw a change in anything after this supposidly happened.
>
>As a matter of fact, I now recall in the early days of Ken Levy posting on the UT as head of VFP development. He mentioned how small the VFP ad budget was to VB's.
>
>
>
>
>>>>If I had to choose a new language I would look seriously at the cross-platform langagues such as Java, Python or Ruby. DotNET is where M$$$ wants us all to go but why not consider alternatives to something that seems to change a lot and ONLY runs under Windows?
>>>
>>>I wonder why some people (like Craigh Berntson) dare to focus entirely on .NET, a product that may currently be mentioned a strategic product for MS, but may as well be no longer so within a couple of years. Afterall, there is nowhere written, as to my knowledge, that MS promisses to continue development of .NET for as long as the company will remain to exist.
>>>
>>>Similarly, your observation about support for Excel and the like was sharp.
>>
>>Let me ask you this... and I am asking because I haven't been around that long. Has Fox ever been a strategic product for MS?