Jack,

VFP ain't perfect, there are several things on my wishlist of things I wish it did or did better. I'm sure some of Jim's wishlist items would be very valid improvements to the product. I was just pointing out that he's not the only one and shouldn't be so upset that his suggestions aren't implemented in a time frame that suits him.

>I think Jim Nelson points out an important point about VFP--you can not simply pass a CURSOR between a VFP client and VFP COM server. If I have understood Jim's posts in the past, that would address issues that many have with the "dated" DBF format. You could protect those tables on a separate server accessible only to the COM server. In effect, would you not have something akin to the traditional client server?
>
>Jim, you once said that I like to "stir things up." You've been on a real rampage with MS' handling of VFP. However, does the current version inhibit you in any way from delivering apps that meet you clients' needs and expectations? If you see benefits in adopting ADO and MS's Universal Data Access paradigm, why not just pick up VB and do those things today? If you wait for VFP to catch up, you always be behind...