I agree with your general point(s), but am curious what you mean about UI design at the end. What limitations are you thinking of?


>It is becoming a popular thought that Microsoft killed VFP so that SQL Server would eventually sell more licenses (although it will take 2-5 years) as corporate IT heads will move away from VFP.
>
>Listen to Les Pinter recent interview on DotNetRocks.com where he talks about what all he knows about the long-range plans Microsoft had to kill VFP, so SQL Server sales would increase.
>
>Honestly, I can't wait to learn Visual Studio, but I do hate that VFP has ended. Once we make the jump, I sure we'll one day be glad. VFP does have some limitations that will prevent modern UI design.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>I don't disagree that VFP is at end-of-life cycle. I do disagree that we were given a no-go service pack (at least for some important points) and that's just not acceptable. We deserve better than that.
>>
>>We deserved better than that ever since M$ bought Fox. I've met my first M$ representative who had no clue that Fox was Microsoft's product, didn't even know that it existed, as early as 1995. I've gone through several M$ packages even during those years, and Fox was never given equal credits. During the VS tenure, it was advertised as an afterthought, there was no funneling of knowledge to the salesforce etc etc.
>>
>>What importance Fox had, came from us, from the Fox team, and from occasional slips of the rest of Microsoft.