>Yes, I was mostly kidding.

Thank goodness.

>Now, can you spare me of that kind of attitute and explain what is so 'proven' in technology that changes

Oh, grow up. When you finally raise your head out of the FoxBox, you will find that there are people and companies all around the world who are creating and using .NET applications and have been for years. Fox/VFP is such a tiny part of what actually happens in the real world.

>it's guts every few years apparently to the tune of solutions needing serious rewrites.

What are you talking about. Oh, right, you did say "apparently". That is because you don't actually know, do you? I suppose that if you take any development platform and implement a poorly designed and architected application, you will end up having to re-write it. This happens in any technology. I have seen many Fox disasters in my time and this is likely the case with .NET, Java, Delphi, Python, Ruby, PHP, Javascript and so on.

>Are new versions of NET framework backward compatible ? Yes , no, partialy , fully ?

You can run any .NET 1.1 code in 3.5, no problem. The same is clearly not true the other way.

>I don't do NET yet,

So why make sweeping statements like "Since when is NET 'proven' technology" ???

>but that is what I read.

You shouldn't believe all you read. What did people who didn't know about Fox/VFP write and say about it? It was mostly untrue and unfounded to those who used the product and knew it.

>So enlighten me. Do you have all your 1.1 apps upgraded to 3.5 and how did that go ?

Like I said, you can run 1.1 apps in 3.5, no problem.