>>I didn't mean to imply that you were condeming anything. I just wish that the preview did work better, as sometimes, it wouldn't even be necessary to print a report if the preview was at least readable. It's just hard to tell ahead of time exactly what will/won't be acceptable given the wide range of video resolutions/fonts that are "standard". What works well on one users' system looks just plain awful on another. And it's a lot of work to come up with alternate presentations for all reports. So, is it really misuse, if the tool could/should be made better?
>
>
>Fred,
>
>Interesting question. My answer is that one should know the tool and use it the way it works. If the tool changes in the future one has to adapt their practices to the new features of the tool.
>
>In that sense the discussion of "what should be" is overridden by the question of "What is".
>
>I would say that the word Misuse defined as "Incorrect or improper use" in Webster's Dictionary would apply to using a feature in spite of its weaknesses where those very weaknesses reduce the features's value in the current context.

Jim,

No argument from me there! It is too often "weak". As a matter of fact, it is one area of VFP that I am quite frankly surprised has always been one of it's weaker points. I guess a solution is OLE automation with Word and/or Excel (or similar 3rd party tools). It's just too bad that speed and resources are such a concern there.