Here's the main coverage VFP gets in a June 1997 magazine:

"We scratch our heads when it comes to Visual FoxPro 5.0, which
even Microsoft can't seem to position. It's an excellent implementation
of the legacy Xbase technology. But, it's not as attractive as Microsoft
Access for desktop applications and it's not as robust as SQL Server with
a Visual Basic front end in large-scale tasks."

The other mention of VFP5 is just that it's one of the two products included
in Visual Studio 97 that's not integrated having its own IDE. Great coverage.

DETAILS:
========
Ziff-Davis Internet magazine

InterDev Anchors Visual Studio 97
article by Peter Coffee [mail to Peter_Coffee@zd.com]

Main article at URL http://www8.zdnet.com/zdimag/devtools/interdev/ .

Choose "Cooking Up Components" which takes you to URL
http://www8.zdnet.com/zdimag/devtools/interdev/components.html .

This is beginning to look like a concerted effort on the part of the press to trash
FoxPro by just throwing out a few disparaging words about it whenever they even
have to mention it. How refreshing would an article be with features covered
instead of impressions of a database development tool that it seems the author of
the article has never developed in? Do I care about any author's opinion if s/he
doesn't back it up with some facts and details?

This is another lousy article that only hurts Visual FoxPro once again.