Ditto.

>I disagree with 'backward compatibility' premise. When we use new data type in VFP9 it also breaks this compatibility, but nobody dies because of that.
>
>>>64 bit capability?
>>Too expensive as it would mean re-writing major portions of the program, which they obviously do not want to do.
>>
>>>Better data integrity in the database container?
>>Won't happen with an open data structure as it has. Any major changes to it would break backward compatibility.
>>
>>>Break the 2 gig limit? (not really sure this one is all that useful, but you asked)
>>Would most probably break backward compatibility (which they always wanted to maintain), it would mean an expensive redesign, and (let's be realistic) would compete a little more with SQL Server which is where their money is.
>>
>>Why would they do that? I have VFP apps running DBFs and I have VFP apps running SQL Server. In fact most of my really big tables are in SQL Server (I have one with over 45 million records and growing at about 1.3 million a month). That app is all VFP, except for the big history table. The lookup tables are all DBF. I don't see a problem.