Replacing VFP's bitmapped controls with real Windows controls would be a major undertaking. I doubt MS would be willing to put the necessary resources into VFP. I agree that it's a major problem, but I don't expect any relief from this.

>Does anyone know if and when VFP might move to using real Windows controls as opposed to the "painted" screen method? IE- the buttons on a VFP form are not really buttons, etc. My hunch is that this strategy made it easier to maintain cross-platform capabilities, but this presents serious issues for the Windows VFP application developer.
>
>For instance, this has implications not only for running in a thin client environment (poor performance due to excessive video bandwidth usage), but also in designing automated test suites for testing VFP apps (automated tests work best when windows objects can be manipulated rather than using mouse coordinates and mouse clicks).
>
>While I absolutely love VFP's high level programming language, rapid deployment capability and performance, thin client is starting to hit the big time in the industry and this would mean that VFP, in its current state, would not be a viable choice for enterprise solutions. :(
>
>MicroSoft, are you listening? NT5 will include terminal server and thin client capabilities. VFP must be upgraded to use minimal video bandwidth if it is going to survive.
>
>thanks
>
>Marc Deschenes
>SQA Manager
>The Taylor Group
>Bedford, NH
>mdeschen@taylornet.com