>(1) Are you being told to do this by Microsoft's legal department?

No. Although I have been told by folks at Microsoft that this is in fact - a violation of the license agreement from MS. Because I did not explicitly respond to this issue in a previous thread. Because I am a Sysop on this forum, I felt compelled to deal with the issue.

>(2) Is this the official policy of UT?

Ultimately, you will need to direct this issue to Michel. However, I think it is fair to say that the UT does not condone violating MS - or any software license agreement.

>(3) Does Microsoft intend to take action against people posting fixes to >problems Microsoft cannot or will not address, or making those fixes available >to people who desperately need them but can't get Microsoft to provide the >necessary support? (no, telling someone to buy VFP6 isn't an answer, >especially if they don't have source code and aren't programmers.)

You need to direct this question to Robert Green - the VFP Product Manager. FWIW - slowstart works fine. It may not be optimial - but it does work. I use it and it has served me well. I agree that just telling folks to upgrade to VFP 6 is not a good answer - as some folks are still on 16 bit windows. However, having folks upgrade to VFP 3 may not be unreasonable. I don't work for MS - my comments are only in the context of being a professional developer and what I view to be a reasonable solution. As far as MS sending out a patch for FPW to fix the problem - I have no question that MS could do it. I am sure folks on the Fox team know exactly what the issue is with regard to the fast Pentium - Divide by Zero problem. As both a software developer and a business owner, I can see why MS may not fix the problem. How many revs behind is FPW 2.x? Is going to VFP 3 a viable solution? What kind of precedent does it set? You nor I can answer these questions. It is not an easy situation.

>My future responses to your posting on this matter, as well as whether I will >continue participating as a paying member of UT, depend on your answers to the >above questions.

Ed, no offense here, but I really don't care if you respond to my posts in the future and I don't really care whether you intend to stay as a paying member of the UT. If my answers mean that much as to whether you stay a paying member of UT tells me you may be viewing things in the wrong context. My post just states for the record that patching the ESL is in violation of the license agreement from MS. What you choose to do - or not do - is completely up to you. Please know that any posts on the UT that I see will be responded to by me. I don't believe in censorship - so it will not be me deleting messages. Rather, I am just trying to get the record straight - not trying to win any popularity contests here....