Jim,

>
>As I see things, the *vast* majority of the new features/fuctionality were related to the DEVELOPER, *not* stuff for the end user.

Whether features are related to the developer or not, it is the end user's requirements that drive everything. Regardless, where is the relevance? Who cares why and for whom the new features were implemented? That isn't important to this discussion.

>
>Don't use the new version is certainly *not* the answer. You may be stuck with it so you *have* to live with it. Getting fixes and other support is just about impossible for anything but the newest version.

I disagree. You can get support here (UT). As far as getting fixes, what are you suggesting? That an older version (say 5.0a) still has bugs that require fixes? Well, Jim, think about it. If 5.0 still has bugs, what makes you think that 6.0 won't have bugs that are never fixed? As I said, we are still mainly using VFP 3.0. So, in some cases, not using the new version IS the answer.

>
>Some of the things that the latest version had *were* aimed towards users, and some of those (MTS for instance) were half-baked (even though the Fox Team was said to have proclaimed at DEVCON last year that VFP was ready but other VS components were holding up delivery of VS).
>
>To me it is quite clear - MS is focussed on mid-tier for VFP and any GUI stuff is taking a distinctly back seat. Many GUI-related bugs from 5.0 remain in 6.0 and many new GUI problems seem to have been introduced with 6.0. This is decidedly NOT GOOD for the product or for the way most of us deliver apps to our clients.

This has only further supported my above statement (ie. bugs in 5.0 are still in 6.0 and therefore, you can use 5.0 if you don't need the new features in 6.0).

>
>I will acknowledge that most people on UT remain mute on this issue, but I feel strongly that this is based more on fears of either 'insulting' the VFP development team *or* that MS will pull the plug on the product.
>
>Dr. Fulton's alleged statement certainly *does* apply today, as it always will. I'm sure that his developers also added new stuff which increased the overhead but I am confident that this was done with extreme caution and with strong attention to optimization.

The bottom line is that some new features are going to increase the overhead. Look at Dr. Fulton's statement again. If that direction was followed, we'd still be using FoxPro for DOS. There is no argument here.

>
>For many of us (most, I dare say), whether vocal about the issue or not, the trend is going distinctly *AGAINST* our needs and wishes.
>
>You can slough off this concern but that attitude solves nothing.
>

Jim, I think that you've taken a discussion with a very narrow scope and widened that scope to include things you want to talk about. Which is fine, but my initial comments applied to one topic, not all topics.

I agree with some of what you've said but I think that is for another thread.

Joe

>Jim N
>
>
>>Holy small font. You must have good eyes or a low resolution.
>>
>>Dr. Fulton said that a long time ago. There comes a point when it doesn't apply anymore.
>>
>>Anyways, if you don't need the new features, don't use the new version. We are still using VFP 3.0 for the most part. Making new features optional would be nice, but probably not practical. Where has this ever been implemented before? I think it would just be too much work for the small benefit.
>>
>>If GUI stuff slows down, say from taking 1/10 second to display a screen to 1/8 or a second, who cares? Will the end-user see the difference? No. And the point is that new equipment is faster and will normally more than offset the difference (ie. the net result will be a faster program).
>>
>>Also, I am not the biggest MS fan. But I will say that they are not the only software company that requires faster hardware for desirable performance. Just take a look at the recommended minimum system requirements for most software titles on the shelf today.
>>
>>Take care,
>>Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Joseph:
>>> <>
>>> I respectfully disagree. Dr. Fulton used to say to his staff: "You can add anything you want to FoxPro as long it makes the product smaller and faster." At MS, the design philosophy seems to be the opposite.
>>> Your point is well taken: added functionality increases the size and reduces the speed of the product. As they say: "Grove giveth and Gates taketh away". For us as developers, and for our clients, the question is: do we need the new functions that cause the product to be bigger and slower? To the extent that the answer is "no", the product becomes less well-suited to our needs. It seems to me an elegant solution would be to make these new features optional, somehow, so developers who don't need them would not be burdened with the overhead. (At least that's how I'd design it if it were my product.)
>>> Regards, Chaim

Joseph C. Kempel
Systems Analyst/Programmer
JNC