Hi Ed,

>George, by being a known quantity to the FPA staff, might be a better point of contact, and the FPA staff might feel more of a need to respond to issues raised by him rather than by me.

I think I know what my problem is... It sounds as if you've contacted FPA before and I've no idea at all when and where this was. If your contact was directly with Advisor, this would explain it, because Advisor has no official presence on the UT, and CE's like myself work more like a contractor for Advisor. I don't get mail you sent to Advisor if it doesn't refer to one of my articles. If your message was on the UT, it's probable that I missed it. My recent presence here is more caused by JVP's bunch of messages. I did my regular check on certain keywords and found that "Advisor" returned way more hits than the last time I checked, and all referred to the same thread.

>they should extend that statement to "Employing VFP for new development for the Win32 platform is better for the client than continuing to develop with FPW, a product that is no longer formerly supported by the vendor."

In fact, they do. I'm currently looking at the March issue, that's the last one I have. In the table of contents only two articles have "FoxPro 2.x" attached. One is Advisor Answers, which is not quite true, because Tamar only mentions why XLS means Excel 2.0 to VFP. And the other one is the Tips article. In there only two tips apply to 2.x, one is about the report designer, the other one uses the RUN command. As both haven't changed much since 2.6, adding "FoxPro 2.x" to the list of supported versions seems appropriate to me, but it doesn't mean that this tip has been choosen because of 2.x compatibility.

In fact, the last time an entire article was targetted at 2.x was my Y2K solution, and that was an exception because it covered a pretty current and urgent issue for many people. Before that it must have been in early 1997 or 1996 that the last 2.x article appeared.

For Advisor Answers we get a suprisingly high amount of 2.x question. I don't have the exact figures, but it's pretty high. We don't use them, though. If an answer is usable for 2.x that "by accident" because it doesn't use any commands only available in VFP.

>The amount of space devoted to FP2.x concerns in FPA does not make this statement.

I'm really interested to see how you came to this conclusion. Can you give me examples? And that's neither a trick question, nor am I trying to devalue your comments.

Christof