>One thing that Drew may consider is restricting VMP6 to VFP7. Obviously this would need a lot of thought and probably user input before they seriously consider such a move. I for one think it will make the product more powerful if it can use pure VFP7 code.


Why on earth would they consider this? If they did, my perception is that it would unnecessarily flatten the curve in the sales/use of the product.

Of course there are a number of VFP developers who are itching to get into VFP7, (me included) but you must keep things in perspective. For instance, a very small percentage of VFP developers are able to attend conferences such as Orlando. and not every VFP user will Immediately order the upgrade when VFP does ship. Many of us will get it as a part of oour MSDN subscription, but that is not the sole marketing outlet for the product. Remember, also, that there are still a large number of developers still originating and maintaining code in FPW 2.6, and even the DOS version as well. Not every VFP developer is an independant consultant, and must depend on old fashioned justification/budget in order to upgrade any software. FPW 2.6 and VFP 6.0 will still be around for quite a while yet, I believe. It is man-hour and dollar intensive to migrate reasonably complicated applications (lots of forms) originally developed in FPW to a visual version and we all know the migration utilities leave a lot to be desired, when the original developer used unique or 'different' conventions and methodology when building the original application. Finally, it would be a limiting factor if VMP would only work with VFP7 when VFP7 contains a great deal of legacy compatibility.