>>Hi Craig,
>>
>>Actually, I think (IMHO) that the ActiveX developers are half baked and M$ is half baked making the whole situation totally baked :-) Seriously though, M$ should have the same standards enforcement for ActiveX controls in all of the languages. This would eliminate the problem because then developers would have to strictly adhere to the standards and their control would work in all products. You can't really blame the ActiveX control developers when they have a larger third party market for VB to go after and their control works in VB but not VFP. Their opinion is most likely, "Oh well, it must be VFP."
>
>Yup. I've seen this attitude. My approach is to tell them (and I've actually done this), "OK..I'll buy your competitor's product...and recommend it to 500,000 VFP developers."
>
>>
>>I agree with your opinion on M$'s improvements in marketing VFP. Could it get >better? Most definitely. But the advertising in magazines (other than in FoxPro Advisor...yea, that's really useful),
>
>There still LOTS of Fox developers who haven't made the switch to VFP. IMO, marketing to them is just a valid as marketing to non-VPF developers.

IMHO, not really. I think Fox developers still working in the 2.x world are more than aware of VFP and haven't made the switch because they can't, not because they don't want to. Mostly, because of things like continuing to support legacy apps, the company or client they work for still has outdated hardware and O/S's, etc. It's more important, IMHO, to market VFP to new developers, non-VFP developers and even more importantly to market it to the decision makers who aren't technically knowledgable in development languages and make their decisions based on what "seems" to be the best solution.




>
>>the continuation of DevCon and it's attendance, the rebirth of FoxTeach here in Toronto, Ontario which sold out are all good signs. Hopefully, M$ keeps this upward momentum going.
>
>They definately will.