>>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.
>
>Strategic is being part of a plan (strategy) to accomplish some goal. At the time that MS merged with Fox Software, there were many desktop databases and FoxPro was the best. The MS offerings weren't up to the competition, yet. So, by merging with Fox Software they were able to compete with the other desktop database companies, while buying time to improve their products.
>
>VFP is no longer needed for any of their goals. It is no longer part of a plan (strategy) and therefore is no longer Strategic.
>
>As a matter of fact, because of our independent ways we are actually a hindrance.

I feel a relief. It appears that the English definition of strategy is completely equal, not merely similar, to the Dutch definition (of 'strategie', to be exact).

Some here are all too certain that other products, most notably .NET, Office and SQL-Server, will be strategic products for the rest of this century, at the least, with a never ending life cycle. But I dare to doubt that. I dare to state that there is no eula on MSs site that promisses such a thing. At this moment MS is trying to convince developers to jump on the NET ship, promissing it will not sink and that the captain won't jump off. But such promisses have been made before, for example when they bought Fox Software.

Your perception that we are actually regarded as a hindrance, may well be correct.