>>Yes, I did write some comments on the subject recently. I also just read Mary Jo's recent blog on Pablo's petition. It is sad to see Microsoft continue to put a spin on things. Calvin and I looked at doing .NET and 64-bit. These things were certainly possible if Microsoft wanted to devote more resources to the team. But it seems they were always more interested in taking away resources than adding them.
>
>...
>
>>Certainly, VFP has not been strategic for years and a reason why they didn't want to make it .NET. After all, Microsoft already has products like VB, C#, SQL, Access which (collectively) already do what VFP does. I hope this is nothing new to any of you. But there were also resource issues. Do you guys remember when Microsoft bought Fox Software? As many of you know this, one of the stipulations in the deal was for the developer team to come over to Redmond. I think something similar needed to take place in order to bring a better data model to Visual Studio -- tap into the strong Fox developer resources.
>>
>>Personally, I would love to see Microsoft be a little less callous on this whole matter. This attitude of "that's our decision, get over it and move on" is a bit disconcerting, especially to a community that has been so loyal to a product that existed well before Microsoft bought it.
>
>Thanks for confirming the picture I had in my mind about the whole history. "Disconcerting" is a nice understatement of how I felt about it in the recent years.
>
>I must repeat what I said in another thread: you guys were too good for where you were. Thanks for staying so long on it.
>
>To Peter, whom I specifically CC'd on this: this is the best answer you can get.

.. get so far. :)

Indeed, Randy's posts are far more informative than YAG's posts were. And since MS refuses to take the requests for reasons serious, I now feel urged to give more weight to this information.

Thank you Randy. You shed light where MS doesn't. And that light is important for many (not all <g>) of us.