I thought the articles were both very positive toward the exams and the efforts devoted to the development of the exams. Since 2 different people wrote the articles, I can not fault one for omitting something mentioned in the other article. Both have a very prominent cross-reference link to the other article, so the reader is very likely to be exposed to all relevant information.

>What do both of you think about the reviews. The distributed seemed have more in depth research. The desktop review didn't even mention the fox wiki.
>
>>Looks like VFP is still alive and well! The leap from the annoying Is VFP Dead Threads to complaining about publication lag time in very positive VFP articles is most encouraging. I stand by my tag line links. :^)
>>
>>>I hate seeing things like "Current status: Expected to be released in February" in something that is published in mid March. It always bugs me when magazines print "old news" because of the lag time to publication. I hoped e-zines would help with this, but maybe not!
>>>
>>>
>>>>Check out the reviews on the VFP exams.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.mcpmag.com/members/00apr/fea3main.asp
>>>>http://www.mcpmag.com/members/00apr/oe2main.asp