>>I just want to comment to anyone in general:
>>
>>I don't think we should be upset by this fact (6 is slower than 5 for some operations). This is typical with any computer program. As programs become more complicated (powerful), they demand more processing power and more memory. Generally, performance of older software is better than newer software on non-state-of-the-art machines. But, more powerful machines should run the new software at similar speeds.
>>
>>That said, I sure hope that data manipulation functions haven't slowed down in any significant way.
>>
>>>FoxPro has always gotten it's speed from doing things in memory vs. on disk. If you don't have sufficent memory, then the OS provides "virtual memory" with is really just mapped to disk. It appears that VFP 6.0 requires a larger amount of memory to do somethings, and I'm assuming they have added more overhead to some functions to provide more features and better integrity / error handling. (At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it <g>.)
>
>If this is the case then Microsoft should change the reqmts on their box flap of VFP 6.0 to state this. The system reqmts are as follows:
>PC with a 486DX/66 or higher processor, WIN95 or higher, 16MB or higher ....
>It's tough to tell your clients that they need to buy a New Machine to run a new APP. New products should be more efficient, not heavier.

The requirements should be realistic. I don't know what they say now, but I would have thought that they were at the very least what you stated. But that is a separate issue...

Re: It's tough...
So then you develop in VFP 5.0 or 3.0. Also, sometimes business is tough and it is your job to let your clients know.

Re: New products should be more efficient, not heavier.
Based on this idea, we could all be running Windows NT 4.0 with 286's with 1 Mb RAM and a 20 Mb hard drive. New Features=Heavier. That's the way it has always been and there are good reasons for this fact.

Joe