>Why not just write a book strictly on VB? It's your long suit. You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge and experience with VB and you do a great job with promoting it here on the VFP UT forum.
>
We already have a VB-web book, and intend to update it for the next version.
< vbg >.

>
In addition, Gary DeWitt and Mike Levy are coming out with a full-blown C/S SQL Sever 7.0 book with Hentzenwerke - that will be a hard act to follow and will, not doubt, take some steam out of anything you have planned in that area.
<

You think so...??? From what I understand, Mike only did a few chapters. And, my guess is that Gary, who I have a lot of respect for BTW, will be tackling the C/S issue from a traditional VFP perspective. Rod and I OTOH, will not be using the DBC whatsoever. No remote views, etc... So you see, we have a very different angle here. It is totally component based. So, while I am sure the book from Gary and Mike will be very good, I can assure you there will be no overlap between the two books. For one thing, I would suspect that they will get into administration issues that Rod and I won't touch. We will show some SPT, but rather, we will focus on ADO and DataClas stuff, which BTW, is also in the 6.0 book. The dataclas itself was introduced in the 5.0 book.

<
Then there is Tamar and Della's book comming which will focus on Office Automation...
>

Automation is their entire focus. It will only be a chapter or two in our book. In their table of contents, they have 3 chapters devoted each to Word and Excel. Two for powerpoint, and only 1 for Outlook. The distribution seems kind of odd. I for one think you could wrap up PowerPoint in one chapter, and most likely, could do Outlook in two or three. Also, it appears that they are taking a VFP-Client centric approach to automation. Rod and I OTOH, look at VFP as being both a client and a server. i.e., we tend to take a more COM-Middle-Tier approach to things. And keep this in mind, when you see the VFPCOM stuff in Tamar and Della's book, you can thank yours truly for that...< bg >....

>I don't understand.

Hopefully you understand now...