Jeez, Rox :-)

>uhhhhh.... excuse me? I had to teach users & managers & < gulp > even customers once, what the "dot prompt" was. And John's older than me. So pick another angle.

What everyone is seeming to forget is that when Access 1.0 came out, a lot of Fox developers looked at it as a way to ween users from using Fox as an end-user tool and use it for developers only. So, clearly, in some respects Access was and is a logical upgrade path for *users* of old versions of Fox.

I taught PC databases at a community college from 1985-1990. We taught students that dBASE III+, FoxBase, and FoxPro 2.0 were end-user tools that you could also program if you got really good at them. And that was the mentality. Everybody taught them that way; programming were the "advanced" courses. 75% of the students in even our advanced courses were end-users. To this day, I run into homegrown apps written in FB or FPD or even FPW that were written by end-users....do you think these people should go to VFP?

Of course, Access 1.0 tended to badly corrupt DBFs but that's a different story. Anyway, I don't have to "pick another angle". I'm not being presumptious why that site said what it said.

>But we're talking dark ages here folks, the days when nobody even knew what a gigabyte was. I dont see how that's relevant to Access being stated as the logical upgrade to fox 2.x.

Not quite so in general, though I can't speak to your specific situation. I think you have your product timelines a bit off. And, if you look at the thread, I made an early argument that neither 1) Access 2) VFP, or 3) VB/SQL was all right or all wrong as an upgrade path. When Craig made a similar observation, John jumped all over him, for no apparent reason than the fact he disagreed with Craig's conclusions which made a lot of sense to me, thinking back to the 1991-1994 period and how I saw FP used and still used by some today.