>>I have POLITELY asked Alan Griver to mention the reasons. Reasons we need for several reasons. First, we have customers who want to know why. At the moment I do NOT have a single good argument. (Don't expect me to say to that customer: "MS no longer sees it as a strategic product". The resulting debate might become troublesome.) Second, I need to know before I can make a grounded strategic decision for my own company.
>
>What do you need to understand exactly? What don't you get about "There will be no new version of Visual FoxPro?"

The reasons. I don't FULLY get it.

>>Does a company have those choices if they have invested in the development of tens of complex applications that are meant to be in the market for many years to come and are actually the lifebelt of that company? Do you expect these companies to rewrite that all? Are they to blame for having put trust in MS when they chose for VFP as their main development tool years ago? Note: I'm not necessarilly talking about myself here.
>
>No and neither do they have to. VFP isn't discontinued. It's not dead, it merely is no longer producing future enhancements. That's not the same thing...

That may be the (possibly correct) perception of insiders, but outsiders will say VFP passed away in March 2007. And ALL customers are outsiders.

>Microsoft actually understands EXACTLY what kind of people they are dealing with and this is the reason why they are handling the phase out this particular way - slowly and over an extended period of time to give developers a chance to a) figure out whther they need to do something else or b) continue on with VFP for the 8 years and if they do have plenty of time to keep going. 8 years is a long period of time for an application, especially an existing application.
>
>What more can you ask for in a phase out scenario?

For what reasons had it to be phased out anyway. Suppose the city council decides to phase out my neighbourhood. They tell me that all houses will be torn down in 2015. That may be the best solution to a problem, but all involved will ask for the reasons.

Your other comments are understood, which does not necessarilly mean I fully agree, but the differences in viewpoints are not enough for debate, I think. One thought popped up in my mind. "I understand" is interpreted by many as similar to saying "I agree". Reminds me of a friend who, when she was compelled to visit her former boy friend in jail (he was arrested for stalking her) her advisor told her to be careful with saying "I understand" thus indicating that she'd heard what he said, but rather say "I hear what you're saying". This should prevent that he'd interpret her 'understanding' as implying agreement.