You're right about their support for VFP. After I notified them their Ultra version was broken with VFP they responded within a day to my email, said they would be working on it, and the fix came a couple of weeks later. Now they may have been working on it for much longer than that, but this is typical of their responsiveness in the past. I agree with your assessment of their organization.

I had an issue of an ActiveX component that had to be registered outside MoleBox with the older version. It will be interesting to see if "Ultra" fixed that.

BTW Francois, I'll have to get my daughter to translate my greetings to you. She's in college now, majoring in French. It was have been that summer we stayed in Uzes (a few miles north of Nimes) that fixed a permanent image of France in her mind.


>>Bonjour François,
>>
>>Is there a big difference between ordinary MoleBox and the Ultra version? Why should I get the Ultra one?
>
>Bonjour Denis,
>
>On top of Scott answer - I agree with all items ... - Ultra offers much improved activeX and com support. I have yet to find a component that need to be registred in my current ultra-molebox-ed application. Previous versions had a few quirks on this issue.
>
>I took the liberty to embed VFP dlls, a bunch of COM-ponents, GDIPlus and a couple of system components. In order to provide copy-based installation (zip install) on top of the typical installer-based support. It works for me. Up to now.
>
>Big achievement for a small IT shop in Russia. Smart people. They support VFP. Anyone here should support them. Not for philantropic reasons by the way -:)