If you have another logical explanation for some VFP refugees saying since 1.1 that NET does data as well as VFP, lets have it. And lets not forget that 3.0 is around the corner at which point the vendor will acknowledge faults in the previous iteration, as usual. How will that be explained?

VFP being early in allowing 32-bit windows dev was cool, the whole OO thing was cool (though knockers denied it was OO or said VB had it too) but for many here, what was really cool was the in-memory, in-language munging. Even in the old days when you could only have 25 open tables/cursors at once, still it was really cool. If people disagree they have every reason to move on, which is the explanation I offered. ;-)

For those who did did migrate in 2002 and have been perfectly content, good for them. However, I'd suggest it took longer to be productive than it would have been if newer tools like Linq to SQL were available. Yeah I know it's popular to hoot and holler at Linq to SQL as well as VFP, but that just shows that hooting and hollering is a territory marker. ;-)

I really don't see why these discussions need to get so heated. MS supports and loves those of you who migrated earlier. MS also supports and loves those who stayed behind and is openly describing its VFP-like features to draw people in. If people don't like the VFP-like features, then they don't use them. Where's the harm?