>>SNIP
>>>
>>>
>>>You speak wisely. But what else is new? <g>
>>>
>>>That said, I don't think the demise of FoxPro as an active product at Microsoft was necessarily due to a lack of resources. The team was great. It was just never a strategic product for them. They bought this little database company in a strip mall in Toledo as a competitive response to Borland. I think they gave it a reasonably good try (Fox Software never could have developed an object oriented Windows version of FoxPro) but ultimately the market moved on. Not even Microsoft moves markets.
>>
>>I think you vastly underrate Fox Software.
>>They had multi-platform capability and plans for a clien-server version and other versions. One may even have been a OO version... I really can't remember.
>>
>>But based only on when VFP3 was announced, I have to think that Fox Software was well on the way to doing it itself.
>>
>
>I don't underrate Fox Software. What they did was terrific. But Fox's Windows version was a different GUI slapped on the same product. It was not a complete redesign and rewrite as VFP 3.0 was. We'll never know but I don't think Fox Software could have done it.

I keep hearing that MS could not go beyond 2 Gigs for table sizes because the core of VFP was written in an older version of C and they weren't going to redo it (they probably just ported the old code over from the DOS Foxpro version). So, I wonder how much they did do in a redisign.

Whether or not MS or Fox Software wrote the guts for VFP is immaterial.... we are in big doo-doo with SP2 for VFP 9.

To heck with 2014.... it is here already folks.

(ps... watch out for the fun things that might happen with VFP programs under XP SP3 )!

Tommy Tillman A+ NetWork+ MCP