Ok, what I should have said was marketing creates the demand and the merits of the product either keep it in demand or not. But VFP hasn't even received the benefit of the marketing.

Why does the marketing of VFP have to be a VFP vs VB approach? I agree that it wouldn't make sense for M$ to tell the VB world to move to VFP. However, VFP should be marketed based on the merits of VFP alone and not compared to anything else. Also, it should be in a forum that would be seen by non-VFP developers (i.e. Marketing in FoxPro Advisor is pointless, IMHO.)

Also, the one thing I don't quite get is this. If a VB developer buys VS and then based on VFP's merits decides to do alot of development in VFP, the bottom line ($'s) to M$ is the same, so I don't see how this is completely bad business. When it comes to VS it's M$ in a box. Why not promote all tools equally based on their own merits and not versus one another. In the end, no matter which single tool or combination of tools a developer chooses, isn't the result dollar wise the same for M$.

Cheers

>>>but marketing creates demand.
>
>Really?...
>
>1. The Edsel was marketed very heavily, and was a huge flop.
>2. New Coke was marketed very heavily, and was a huge flop.
>3. MS Bob was marketed very heavily, and was a huge flop.
>
>Not that your statement is entirely incorrect, it clearly is not correct 100% of the time. Yes, I do tend to agree that marketing hype around a development tools tends to incease demand and sales. However, this only goes so far. Ultimately, the technical merits of a tool have to be perceived to be better. I am in the Marketing Industry. Perception IS reality. Sure, MS has done nothing to create the perception that VFP is better suited for multi-tier development than VB. That would be stupid. VB is MS's bread and butter. You don't mess with the franchise that is your bread and butter. You don't create inter-product competition within the same company. Want a case study, check out the demise of Apple. MS would be the first to tell you that VFP is not marketed to go against VB. This is no secret. VFP is what it is, a great tool for developing single or multi-tier applications. VB is a great tool for building multi-tier applications. Notice that VB is not a great tool for buildling
>single-tier apps. VFP is. What is the problem here? The future is not in single-tier tools. As a consultant, you may have a great business in building apps that VFP is best suited for. However, MS is a big machine that needs to go where the overall industry is headed. That place is the Web and multi-tier, Windows DNA Apps. While VFP can play in that world, so can VB. So then, if you had to make the argument to somebody, to convince he/she to move from VFP to VB, what would you tell them? There are three basic features that distinquish VFP from VB:
>
>1. The Data Manipulation Language
>2. OO
>3. Containership
>
>In a multi-tier, web-based type app, the DML is almost a non-factor. That model does not carry over. As for OO, the VB community can employ many OO concepts. As for inheritance, most will tell you - "So What...". As for containership, I think this is the most important difference actually. Yet, the VB folks have coped with this also, and once again say - "So What..."
>
>Well, if that is all I have to bring to the table, I think I would lose the argument. Regardless of the fact that VFP is technically superior to VB in many ways, it is techically inferior in many ways as well I might add, the masses out there don't perceive VFP as being a better tool.
>
>Once again, VB owns 80% of the RAD Tools market. It is a fact. Why then, would MS rock the boat and tell the VB/VC/VJ world to move to VFP?? It would seem like pretty bad business to me.
>
>All of that said, I think VFP is the best damn tool in the box. I am just one developer, and it works well for me. However, that is a Micro View. To evaluate things correctly, you need to look at the big picture....