>> I am confused by this paragraph. Why would they state that VFP is not as
>> robust as SQL Server with a Visual Basic front end? Are they comparing
>VFP
>> to SQL Server? I'm using VFP to create front ends to SQL Server. My
>> co-workers are using VB3 to create front ends to SQL Server and Oracle
>> Server. Yesterday I demonstrated how I use VFP to connect to the server
>and
>> I showed some of VFP features. A co-worker did the same with VB3 with Q&E
>
>> Multilink. I think VFP is a much better tool! If there are advantages to
>> using VB over VFP, they sure aren't apparent to me.
>>
>I'm glad I'm not the only one confused. <g>
>
>I don't use VFP5 to SQL Server on a regular basis, but I do tinker with it
>at home (doesn't everyone have an NT Server with SQL Server on it at
>home?).
>
>I can't for the life of me figure out what is *not* robust about VFP5
>front-ending
>SQL Server. It is extremely speedy.
>
>I have fired off a note to MS marketing on this article. I quoted the same
>stuff
>you have just seen and further explained to them that MS might need a press
>
>version of VFP5 that has training wheels on it because the product just
>seems
>to be too difficult for the press to figure out. They look at it thinking
>xBase and,
>when it doesn't match their expectations, they don't know what to do with
>it.
>Then they fall in line with the rest of the reviewers by saying it doesn't
>fit into
>the MS product line and say it's not as robust as VB5, because everyone
>knows VB5 is now 1000% faster than VB4. [I'd like to puke.]
>
>Anyhow, you've come to the same conclusion on that "robust" comment I did.
>
>==Carl

The press said so many times that Foxpro is dead that they must repeat it again just not to look like liars/dummies (where indeed they are).