Craig,

We know the truth. It is better for MS to market products that irretrievably lead to SQL server. Rememeber: SQL Server is very profitable long term (remember Oracle's sales.)

VFP, darn it, is good by itself. It does not *NEED* SQL server. It can use and benefit by SQL Server, but does not need it. VB and Access *NEED* SQL Server. So the logical decision for MS is to downplay VFP. Because we know how good VFP is and make a lot of noise, and perhaps because there is a antitrust suit in process, VFP hasn't been discontinued.

The best thing for *us* would be to MS to become more product oriented. That probably means *breakup*. It's up to the US courts. My guess is "W" likes MS as it is, and the Justice Department will follow his desire. At least that is how it would be in my country.

Alex


>>
>>Craig;
>>
>>I agree with you. Any business wants to make a profit and because a product is like the "holy grail" to some does not mean it will bring in the bucks. VFP might be the best development tool to many but what does it do for the bottom line?
>>
>>Tom
>
>
>Exactly. It doesn't do much at all. EVERY corporation's number one goal is to maximize shareholder value. Everything they do revolves around that. Customer's come second and employees third.