>Guess my point on this whole matter, is if Microsoft does not want to market
>and extol the virtues of VFP, perhaps a well written article in a popular
>computer magazine along these lines would stir up some interest.

I'd like to know if MS sees the "big picture" relative to VFP, or if they think of us as just so many "VFP licenses" .

(With VFP out of the .NET box, MS should now at least be able to get a better idea of how many people are upgrading and/or getting new VFP licenses ... ie. how many people might actually be using the product for development).

For example, I'm helping to support a vertical VFP app that has 2600 installations (and it's not SBT, Accountmate, or AMICS ). This app is "mission critical" for the market it targets. Now, this represents only a "couple" of VFP licenses; however, this app runs on 2600 Servers (mostly NT/W2K), requires perhaps anothers 26,000 Client OS's (W95, etc.), automates Word at another x sites (ie. Office licenses), will in the future be integrated with Project and Visio 2000 (MORE MS licenses), and will eventually support an SQL Server backend (ie. some more MS licenses), maybe use .NET to talk on the WWW, etc., etc.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be someone else to step in if we weren't there; however, their plans re: Project and Visio 2000 might not be as ambitious ... or they might push Oracle ... or prefer Cold Fusion ... etc.

So, our "few" VFP licenses, in the total scheme of things, is worth big bucks to MS (if "millions" can still be considered "big"). If MS can't see that and "kills" VFP, they will p*ss off a lot of people (developers AND Users) and it will wind up "costing" them more than it could possibly save (sour grapes et al).

Even if there were "only" 100K VFP developers, there could be anywhere from 100K to 100K * (5 or 10 or 20 or ?) more "Users" that depend on VFP apps and shell out $ for MS OS's and whatever to run those apps.

That's the point I'd like MS Marketting to "get".