>>I've been involved in two large applications that are using VFP 6 and it's database. One of them did connect to VFP data, SQL-Server or Oracle, the other, currently a VFP database, will probably have to upsize in a couple of years or we'll have to split the current database and continue to use VFP. VFP app development continues at this latter site and the client is happy.
>>
>>Regardless, the point is, VFP is alive and well with many of us who can and do utilize the tool because we recognize the merits of the tool. I don't quite know how to have MS recognize this. Recently several large apps that use VFP were listed here on this site. FP Advisor rants and raves about many others.
>>
>>We all know that MS would prefer to go the VB/SQL-Server route so George raises an interesting point: how to keep MS involved in VFP development. I do agree that one large voice may be better than several smaller ones. I think that the topic needs to include: how does VFP assist with the MS profit picture? If it makes them $$, then there is no issue. If it doesn't, why shouldn't they just drop it? Picture yourself having to make that decision. You have two competing products in the database/application world: VB/SQL-Server and VFP. Both are capable of building what the client wants and let's not get into the VB/VFP thing here as it's not the point. One brings in per/user fees, the other does not. Which one are you going to support the most? So how do we, as VFP developers show MS that continuing with VFP development is profitable for MS? Show them that and they will continue to support VFP forever.
>>
>Steve,
>
>John Koziol made the point that a VFP with the ability to run under Windows CE might be a killer product. Think for a minute about the potential of a product with its own native database that could run on a hand held device. I agree with John on this. It does raise the question: "Given the choice between CLR and Windows CE, which would be best for the product?"

Great point actually, if they do it. Wouldn't that make folks wonder about why they don't tout the native database capabilities for 98/ME/WinNT? Why would it be so good for CE but not the others? Sure, we know why but might this simply add to the confusion?

Steve