Hi George,

>Jim,
>>>
>>>Makes two of us, my friend. The idea that we haven't gotten things that we need in the new versions is a silly one, but one that some subscribe to.
>>
>>But I think far more subscribe to the idea that we haven't gotten the things we want. And some of those (me included) feel that we sure got a lot of what many of us didn't 'need' but a few obviously did both wanted and needed.
>
>Would you care to be more specific? Simply saying that "...we haven't gotten the things we want" is pretty easy. What is it that we haven't gotten, and why do we need them?
>

I can only be this "specific": For VFP 6.0 the list here on UT included a significant number of 'wishes'yet, stretching things, only 3 were in the VFP 6. delivery.

>>It would still be far more useful/helpful for the VFP Team to publish their "working list" of wishes and their probable disposition for next release and next+1 release. A strong disclaimer would of course be included.
>
>Why should they? Things are constantly being evaluated and re-evaluated based on utility, ease of implementation, and impact. The beta was open. We could see what's coming, and even better, start making plans accordingly. That's far more useful than a list that's subject to change without notice.

Equally, why shouldn't they? It would certainly be more in keeping with Mr. Gates' position that MS needs to better communicate with its users. I don't think that publishing as I proposed would in any way stop their evaluating and reevaluating nor prevent them from handling decisions any differently than today. The idea is to simply keep interested parties updated.
The beta is under NDA (usually) and you have to sign on to it to get it. Some of us don't beta. Plus a beta always seems to include something along the lines of 'subject to change' anyway.