>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.

We have a recent hire here who came from VB/Access and really didn't have much good to say about FoxPro, until she actually did some work in it. Now she's been moved to a project that's being developed in VB/Access and her cry is "Why can't I do this project in Fox? I can do SO much more it Fox!!!"