Hi Alex,

>>1) Reduce performance??? In the era of the 90-100 mhz processor with 16meg I *might* see a point here. But in a world of 400mhz-1000mhz processors and 128meg or 256meg as 'standard' and much faster video adapters, is this still relevant?
>
>IMO, _very_. Most of OUR clients will not upgrade their computers just because the new version of the accounting program we made is now able to talk to ICQ.
>
>I'm no fan of upgrading every time MS releases a new version of their office suite, for example. During the past PC-Expo I literally drilled one of their people asking for non-internet related reasons to upgrade a WORD PROCESSOR, to which internet is irrelevant. He couldn't come up with ANYTHING. I'm still using word 95 to write the occasional letter or doc (which, btw, doesn't need to be posted on the web!).
>

I'm with you on this. For instance, I was perfectly happy with Word95 too and upgraded to '97 *only* because my client went to it and I had *lots* of documentation to contribute to, create etc there. I'm still on '97 in fact.

But my comment pertains to the VFP team's "reasoning", and this is a different horse. I'm sure that they expect us all to upgrade to the latest of both hardware and software all the time. And, given the issue here, we would at least be talking about an upgrade of VFP (should they deliver 'standard windows objects'). And my betting is that they design for a platform somewhere around the middle of maximum available processing power, putting it at around the 500mhz range right now. And we are all always free to not upgrade if that is what suits us.

Cheers,

Jim N


>Alex