>>>>Would you like me to list the myriad of capabilities in SQL Server (or the combination of .NET and SQL) that can't be done in VFP?
>>
>>My point was that Joe/Jane End User couldn't care a hoot about our cleverness or intellectual self-satisfaction along the way to deliver the actual thing that they use.
>
>The flaw here is that software is written solely for Joe/Jane end user. Solutions are written for businesses and organizations (and used by a hierarchy of users with different requirements). JR, I know you know this, so I'm left with a concern here that there's some trolling at play here.
>
>I'll acknowledge one valid point - the theme of our industry during the late 1980's and early 1990's resonated with high craftsmanship from Borland, Fox, and Microsoft (and certainly others). I've said countless times up here that Turbo C 1.0 in fall of 1987 and FoxPro 1.0 in fall of 1989 were huge moments - and as much as I love what Microsoft has done with SQL Server in 2008, then 2012, and now 2014, I don't think anything will ever match the sizzle of what we saw in the late 1980's. Maybe it's because it was all new territory back then and we were all youngsters witnessing history.
>
>But aside from that, this "lost sight of the user and focused on IT" isn't necessarily a bad thing at all. Vendors focus on empowering IT so that IT groups CAN provide good solutions for clients. No, they don't always get it right - but these gross generalizations just don't accomplish anything.

But the saddest thing is that the failure rate of large (or huge) IT projects still hovers around the 75% mark. Vendors walk in and sell the powers-that-be a bill of goods and then the IT department is stuck with making it work and the end users suffer.