Hi Vlad,

... also others who are commenting on strange things happening within VFP in simple, long-trusted commands.

As with any complex product I think we should all acknowledge that VFP will have bugs.

But this idea of blaming faster processors or new processor architectures or even legacy FPD/W capabilities within VFP just sounds WRONG and a very bad idea to me. At the very least we *can* expect that processor designers take backward compatibility very very seriously AND I think it's reasonable to expect that there are far "dirtier" programs out there than FPD/W or VFP. In addition it is only reasonable to expect that such processor "defects" (in the way the break backward compatibility) will occur CONSISTENTLY in the specific case where it might happen.

Seems to me that asking here and on other forums is a smart first step. Depending on the answer(s), reporting it to MS VFP Team is the next step.

I've been through lots of bug fix lists for FPD FPW and VFP and I am always amazed at the number and types of bugs. Yet apps. in general still run accurately!

Reading here recently one could begin to form the opinion that VFP has (too) many problems with newer stuff, both hardware, software and itself and that it's reliability is waning fast. A Gartner member could probably take much from here and use it (out of context of course) to "prove" that VFP has serious problems and deserves to die.
I doubt that the situation is materially any different (VFP-wise) than it has been for several years now.

My opinion is that suggesting workarounds is fine but outright stating deficiencies when they are suppositions at best is not good. At least a statement that a (suspected) deficiency claimed is a GUESS might be helpful.

JimN


>Hi!
>
>Correct. That si why I told about black VFP box. We had similar fundamental functionality problems in VFP.
>
>>>You should use an integer as a primary key... you are taking too much of a chance that a user will not hit save at the same time. This is really an unnecessary risk.
>>
>>While I agree with all these responses about not using a date for a PK's
>>Doesn't this thread strike anyone as a bit strange?
>>
>>Carol is basically doing a Scan loop, adding 1 to a variable and shoving that variable into a field and this is not working
>>Pretty fundamental don't you think?
>>
>>Does this mean that VFP has trouble adding 1 to a Datetime value?
>>
>>Just my .02