>Greg, it has been said variously that parts of VFP made it into SQL Server, Access and Linq. But I'm not sure MS bought it for that reason. If all they wanted was technology there was no need to purchase: they could have scalped key players as they did when they lifted Anders from Borland.
>
>When they bought FP it really was riding high with performance in the stratosphere and a future involving multi-OS versions with hints of a C/S variant to come. After the purchase Dr Dave was given a key position in MS's database ranks, though he didn't stay long. The delivery of a truly astonishing VFP3 gave hope that MS was going to push the product. Everything looked great. But then we experienced a luke-warm release followed by Sigler's statements that were a bitter pill for many. These days some might argue that buying FP was a strategic decision to remove a potential competitor and help cement desktop domination.
>
>IMHO it doesn't really matter when or why. For VFP the writing has been on the wall since 1995 or earlier. For some reason the product lasted long after it made strategic sense for MS. That's why I reject suggestions that "developers failing to purchase" caused VFP's demise. If anything, the opposite seems true. We can agree to disagree.

M$ bought Fox Software is for "Rushmore" technology. The first release of Access really sucked when it came to performance (and other things as well). M$ wanted to add Rushmore technology to Access to make it perform better.

Regards,