This is not personal, but your previous reply was. You may look at George's message. It will explain you the case, if you want to know details, though the conclusion will be the same.

>Ed...
>
>It is not a personal attack. You simply cannot make an existing FPW 2.x Y2K compliant just by setting century on. IMHO, you have over-simplified a situation.
>
>How is this personal???
>
>>John.
>>
>>When will you stop to mix technical issues with personal attacks?
>>
>>>Ed...
>>>
>>>Your response: or just by using SET CENTURY ON
>>>
>>>The statement you responded to:
>>>
>>>FPW is not Y2K compliant without significant recoding or the addition of third party products such as Y2KFOX
>>>
>>>Regardless of what you say....you are not only NOT accurate, you have over-simplified what can be at times, a complicated situation....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It entirely depends on how application was designed, mostly on how careful DTOC was used. There are plenty of FPW applications that are fully compliant.
>>>>
>>>>>That DOES NOT make an app Y2K compliant...<s>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I need to provide justification, to a customer, for rebuilding an application in VFP. It's currently in FPW26. Aside from the usual benefits gained in performance and functionality, I'd like to explain the pro's and con's from an environmental standpoint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyone care to contribute?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>FPW is not Y2K compliant without significant recoding or the addition of third party products such as Y2KFOX
>>>>>>
>>>>>>or just by using SET CENTURY ON