>>VFP 3.0
>>
>> The technology conceptually - B+
>> Implementation - C-
>> Marketing - Did not show up for class
>
>
>Wow, you're a tough grader! VFP 3.0 was radically different from FP 2.6. We'll never know but I seriously doubt Fox Software could have done it. Yes, it was buggy. When you fundamentally rewrite a complex piece of software that is not shocking. And the bugs were addressed with reasonable speed.
>
>I am not a blind defender of Microsoft but I think you're being a bit rough on them here.

I remember someone making a comment that 'VFP6 SP4 is what VFP3 should have been' and my thought was that the statement was pretty much bang-on.
In other words, bugs weren't really "addressed with reasonable speed".

With VFP6 I posed the question "Is that all there is?" because there was little for the average developer and much more geared to framework developers and the like. The VFP Team sure turned things around in that regard with VFP7, VFP8 and VFP9.
And despite some concluding that VFP is a "mature product" (code for not really needing more in the way of developer amenities) the list of possible enhancements is still miles long.

The VFP Team did wonders with little resource. VFP10 11 and 12 could have been funded just with the interest from the $$$ being used to purchase the 'advertising optimizing' outfit.