I can only hope that your fears aren't realized. If someday I am forced to changed development choices, I will do that. But, I hope I don't have to. I have become familiar with VFP and I find that I am more efficient with VFP than anything else I've used. And, in most cases, it has been able to offer a complete solution. I hope this continues to be the case.

Take it easy,

Joe

>
>Of course, my concern is rooted in VFP's direction toward mid-level tier. I am convinced that this means a virtual end to development of improved/new GUI capabilities while there remains a crying NEED for much more in that area.
>
>Same goes for database/table capabilities, including the need for things like VFP-to-VFP for (at a minimum) SQL commands / records&recordsets; *any* actual I/O command handled by a (designated) VFP 'server', improved security capabilities (though the foregoing would permit a greater degree of that), etc *and* development improvements like OOP menuing and/or OOP reports. These are just a few things which will now likely stagnate in VFP!
>
>All the while, of course, other products will come up with fancier UI stuff which users will cry for and which we will not be able to deliver using VFP.
>I suspect that even full ActiveX capabilities will elude us!
>
>Meanwhile, no matter how cheap and how easy to use MS makes SQL Server, the added cost and complexity will deter most small/medium businesses from adopting it. And,let's face it, it can never be as fast as VFP is itself!
>
>So it can be argued that "we can do these things today", but the fact is we cannot do all that we would want to do AND we likely never will now. Unless this direction is changged *OR* the VFP team is augmented to continue to develop for those of us who deliver 'low tech' but well accepted business solutions.
>