>>I'd like to say it's all self-interest, because that is surely a large part of it. The other part is that I'm excited. I remember being excited by VFP 1.0, then 2.6 for Windows, and then VFP 6.0 (it worked <s>). I can't be certain, but I think looking back I will conclude that I was most excited by the development of this product. It is SO cool! <s>
>
>VFP 1.0? :)

I was wondering about that one too. If there was a 1.0 it never made even a public viewing AFAIK.

>
>I think so Foxpro V 1.0 was terrible.
>

FoxPro 1.03 (I think that was the version that actually shipped) was better than Foxbase (+,386,or Mac). Not much, but better. I do remember FoxPro .96, .97, and up as we got those since we attended the Fox Software conference in Toledo OH that year. The original Fox conferences were pretty nice, by the way. Not high budget, and in Toledo which had all the charm of Mogadishu on a really bad day, but Fox Software treated us like kings!

>I think so Foxpro's milesones are:
>
>2.0 - it was excited me by fast 32 bit .EXE's and unlimited memory usage.

Unlimited relative to O/S and Processor limitations. But it was hands down the best PC database in existence.

>3.0 - first object oriented version, but I could never used that.

I worked hard to learn the object model in 3.0. It was a seriously bad start for VFP though. It almost made Fox/Windows 2.5 look good.

>6.0

We have a winner. VFP was finally done right.

>
>and VFP.NET will be revolution after DbaseIII->Foxbase->Foxpro->Visual Foxpro revolutions "if they will succeeded"...

Technically this is very cool. Practically (market wise)... we'll see.