>The real reason why M$ doesn't push FoxPro and spend those marketing $$ or have Tech-Ed/MSDN sessions around FoxPro is that its not part of their DNA. Its not a profitable for them when you sell user-licenses for SQL Server and charge by the seat. VFP can run the same type of apps but M$ is only getting the $$ from the DEV that bought it, not the 250 seats that are using it to accomplish daily biz. I've felt for along time that M$ bought FoxPro to lure XBase folks to M$ products, eventually weening us of FoxPro to VB/Access or VB/SQL.

Hi John,

Isn't this a tad bit paranoid? Lets says M$ tries to lure me away from FoxPro. Good luck. There are too many xBase alternatives. Plus -- you can absolutely bet that as soon as MS strays too farm from the xBase core of VFP (if it does), sometime soon some really smart foxproers (not me, unfortunately) will have a FoxPro-like development language out there competing with MS. If you don't think that's possible -- remember how upstart Clipper just about killed Ashton-Tate, and how xBase™ is killing CA's Visual Objects even as we speak.

The sensible view it seems to me that MS does not promote VFP like it does VB (assuming that's true -- I actually don't see much evidence that either language is heavily promoted) is that (1) its customer base is far smaller and (2) it's is a fairly special-purpose development environment with an applicability that is smaller (in terms of pure numbers) than VB's.

It would actually be more reasonable to compare VFP with VC++ -- and there I see no difference in MS's treatment at all.

Everybody lighten up. Every day, in every way, this work is getting better and better.

regards,