>>I respectfully disagree with your statement that I am "way off base". I am not.
>>A simple action on the part of the programmer coding that routine would have
>>prevented the existence of the problem.
>>
>>I stand by my original comments.
>>
>
>Carl,
>
>You again said the Microsoft did it and they did not, the fixed century has been in the product since the beginning long before MS was even considering buying it. It was bought just before 2.5 was released and 2.6 was a small change cycle. VFP was the first thing Microsoft built totally and that's when the fixed century went away.
>
>When someone files a lawsuit about a product that was replaced 5 years before with multiple new versions that have the features they are suing about something rings bad for me. These are the same people who are complaining because FP 2.x has problems with 500MHz CPUs when FP 2.x was current the fastest thing around was a 33MHz 486.
>
>That lawsuit had no merit and the judge was right. It would be interesting to see what teh result would be if the consultant was sued by their client for building them software that didn't handle the year 2000 though.

OK, I agree with part of what you said. A Fox Software programmer may have
made the bad decision. But when Microsoft bought it, it became their baby, and
people still use FPW2.6a today because VFP 3.0 with the win32s interface was
problematic.

Gee, I should have never brought this up. I was just pointing out a
flaw in coding that could have been EASILY avoided if the programmer coding
the routine had just had a little vision. I know, that is rare even today.

Certainly, that programmer would never be welcomed in "Galt's Gulch".