>Craig,
>
>Sorry I was using the time between build dates. It has however, been a very frustrating 8 or 9 months though with all of the new C..5 errors especially when you are trying to ship commercial products based on VFP. But now it is looking pretty good. As you review all of the issues fixed and such and the enormous amount of stuff in the product it is amazing sometimes that it works as well as it does.

Experience with C5 errors have been varied. I only saw a couple of them. Others saw lots. However, did you notice that you never saw Dr. Watson? The C5 was meant to catch GPFs before Dr. Watson, but with all the problems, Microsoft decided to pull that code out of VFP. What this means is that you'll see Dr. Watson now. However, let me clarify that many of the things that caused the C5 error have been fixed so you shouldn't see Dr. Watson as often as you saw C5.

>
>I noticed you have Cable Modem. Is it a two way cable modem in your area? My friend in Hawaii has two way cable and I thought the savings alone in download and upload time for the cost almost justified dropping my two ISDN lines and moving to Hawaii. It is a wired world. Work from anywhere.

I have IDSN at the office and doesn't even come close to the speed of the cable modem. Yes, I have two-way and LOVE it. I downloaded NT SP5 and was getting transfer rates of 50K/sec. However, when I downloaded VS6 SP3, I was getting speeds of 150K/sec. I have been using an ISP and paying for an additional line, so once I turn those off my costs should be about the same, $40/month.

>
>Open source for a lot of VFP stuff would be kind of nice. Since it does take such a long time to get things working when there are lots of errors that make the product nearly unshippable in a commercial environment. Explaining crashes that are out of my control is not an easy thing to do.

Since I don't do VC++, this wouldn't help me. I would much rather have things as they are. IMO, open source for VFP will never happen. It will reveal too many trade secrets. I know that MS has been talking about open source NT, but I don't see that happening in the near future.

>
>I have been using Delphi for a bit now and am impressed with being able to fix the VCL code if it is buggy. It is also very nice being able to pick up all of the Windows Messages right within the app. Plus it's small EXE's are really nice. It just has stinky database access with the BDE. However, it is pretty OOP in the access of the databases and has brought some new ideas to my VFP development.

Another division at work is using Delphi. One of our VFP developers moved over there. He doesn't like Delphi as much. From what he says, VFP is easier to work with and VFP has a better OOP implementation.

>
>I've been looking at some ways to expose some of the Windows Messages to my VFP apps and also how to implement the controls as real windows objects within VFP.

This would be really good. Let me know how things go on this.