>The problem I see here that most of IT managers, who make the decisions about software to use, don't go into details and capabilities of the particular product. They go with the buzzword and what Gartner Group says (and we all know what Gartner Group says about VFP :) Then they are safe. If VFP belongs to VS.NET that (so far) may be considered by them that Microsoft is serious about VFP. If it's not, there has to be another strong sign for them to listen.

Gartner is not going to change their mind on VFP just because it is in the VS box. So anybody who listens to Gartner is going to be told not to use VFP regardless of how we package it.

>Can we? That's what I mean too. If VFP is out of VS.NET there has to be a GOOD story behind it. And good marketing money to support the story. :) There should be a clear positioning of the product. Probably (Just IMHO)
>not as alternative (competitor) for VS.NET, but as a product addressing a different niche and still capable of doing most of what VS.NET supposed to do.
>The part of the explanation might be that VFP is more than just another language which can play in CLR, but a distinct full-featured development environment with own database engine, which cannot be converted to the lowest common denominator.

Exactly. So does being out of VS make it more likely that we can tell that story than if we are in?

Robert