>A lot of times it is simply because Access is an easier sell as it is a part of the Office Suite. I seem to recall being told some time back that there were indeed measurements taken and compensation paid withing Microsoft based on sales volumes. Don't know for sure if that's a fact but it seems reasonable that this is the case. So, would you rather sell a product that is easier to sell as it is 'bundled' and provides you with more totla gross dollar 'points' or one that requires a higher level of technical expertise to support?

>Not really hard to understand if all of the above prove to be true.

---

the next logical step then, is to stop developing and selling VFP...
(in the same way we could eliminate cars (for the Green Party); just increase the 'spiffs' on bicycles and create tariffs on cars! Then bikes will total more gross dollar 'points' and won't require the higher level of technical expertise to support.) The only problem is some people need to go further than bikes could take them...

Hey, maybe microsoft should go into the pre-printed forms business and drop all software, can't get much easier, great margins, and no support required!

OK I'm being facetious but, the products are designed for different markets, handled by different business units with different advertising dollars.

Somehow Microsoft has got to learn how to market VFP, it is the cadilac of cars and they shouldn't expect to sell as many cadilacs as chevys. We didn't create the distribution channel for VFP nor do we limit how MS should package or market it. BTW what royalties does MS make on Access? And when was the last time you saw a thread discussing how overpriced VFP was?

One last thing, from your logic Doug, shouldn't they drop SQL Server, or maybe drop Word in support for Works? <bg> Wouldn't dream of it would you, it's clear Works wouldn't handle your needs, Isn't it the same, Microsoft must make it clear about the differences between Access and VFP!

ok, I'll stop now :-\