Jim, thanks for the reply. However, I'm still interested in a clear explanation of 'strategic', as the others here see it. Who's next?

>>>>It sure was when they bought Foxpro.
>>>
>>>Strategic is capturing the Windows database development market, but never strategic as in the main development or main database platform.
>>
>>Okay, now it's time someone here extensively explains to me what 'strategic' really means, in the United States and English language.
>
>Peter,
>
>There seems a "standard" in place with Microsoft proponents here that for Microsoft to do **anything** it MUST be "strategic".
>It's as if no company - but especially Microsoft - EVER does any work on anything that is not "strategic". When something is not "strategic" then it defaults to being a "good business decision" to stop working on it.
>
>As you suggest, "strategic" therefore has no definition. It is strictly in the eye of the beholder.
>
>While for Microsoft .NET is clearly "strategic", it seems to me that some of its 'sub-products' are far less so.
>Many here seem to think that it it ain't .NET then it has no place in Microsoft's repertoire. Hopefully, Microsoft is a tad smarter than to operate that way.
>
>Microsoft **could** have made VFP an item in a (strategic) objective to woo/keep the small-medium business market. But at this point I believe Microsoft considers any company *under* 6,000 employees to be "small business" and they don't seem to hold much interest for the REAL small/medium business market. Even though that market collectively has hundreds of thousands of licenses for Windows and Office and a few other Microsoft offerings.
>
>Some day Microsoft will buy for millions of $$$ a product "built on" the VFP model. And the cycle will repeat itself again.