>
>WinForms is certainly closer to VFP than is WPF and I'd accept that if someone is already familiar with WinForms and writing a standard 'business' type app then there's not much reason to switch to WPF.
>
>From a UI point of view the beauty of WPF (to me) is that you can *completely* replace the appearance of any control - from a button to a grid, a combobox or listbox but usually that's overkill - you can change a lot without redefining the it completely. For instance it's pretty straightforward to completely 're-skin' an application using styles (bit like CSS in web pages)
>
>The way controls are automatically sized/rearranged also makes it much easier to implement multi-language versions where that is a requirement.
>
>But there's a *lot* more to WPF than just the UI. For example:
>* The use of Routed events (event tunnelling and bubbling)
>* The Command system.
>* Dependency properties (which take a bit of getting used to). I read somewhere that the humble button has pushing a hundred properties (I guess the WinForms equvalent has somewhat less) but in WPF less than a dozen are true properties - the rest are dependency properties and most of these will have no memory requirement unless actually used.
>* The Databinding - which is a lot more flexible that the WinForms implementation.
>
>Back on the UI front Transformations (allowing scaling, rotation, and more) are built in, as is pretty full support for sound, video and 3-D graphics (the graphics sub-sytem bypasses GDI+ completely and intelligently makes use of available graphics card capabilities)
>
>All of that said to use WPF fully requires a *big* change of mindset and a steep learning curve......
>
>Anyway - I love it and would hate going back to WinForms, HTH
>Viv

Thank you very much for your reply and for sharing your experience.