Jim,

>Unfortunately VFP only reports to thousandths of a second and I suppose that rounding may have some effect (if rounding is done).

In NT it is even worse: a resolution of only a hundredths of a second.

>Since each is for 100,000 executions, my concern is tempered. But it still seems to be a step in the wrong direction.

>Is there a sensible explanation for this?

Your test is indeed surprising, but here are some thoughts from my side:

The VFP 6.0 language is significantly richer than the FDP 2.6 . It might be that searching the proper C++ code to execute simply takes more time in VFP. Since the Runtime library has grown significantly this would not surprise me. I can also imagine that much of the internal VFP code has not changed since FPD 2.6, so I would not expect better performance from these commands.

Did you do your test in 32 or 16 bit FPD ? what are the results of the other one ?

Cheers,

Walter,