>$80 reasonable? Depends on your financial status, I suppose.
>
>I did say that if you want to upgrade to something that won't work with your current system, then an upgrade is necessary, so I'm not sure what you're arguing with there.
>
>The point I was responding to was the question of why he would want to stay on Win 95, not whether or not it was feasable when moving to VFP 7. It seems these days that people are shocked when people choose to stay with what they have rather than upgrade. The response here shows that. He wanted to know if VFP 7 would work with Windows 95. The majority of the responses were that he should dump 95, which really didn't answer his question at all. If, in fact, VFP 7 works fine with Windows 95, then he has no reason to upgrade unless he needs technical support.
>
>I also never said anything about expecting MS to support Win 95. If I buy a 6 year old car, I don't hold the manufacturer responsible for fixing problems with it. But if I'm happy with the car, what reason is there to buy the latest model? And if I want to add something to that car, but the manufacturer says it only works with the latest model, then what? I can try it and see if it works, knowing I'm on my own if it doesn't, or I can upgrade. Whether I'm willing to take the chance depends on how much I like the current car.
>
>As to having to check if WSH is installed, don't you have to do that with any OS, since many people disable it because of viruses? I don't know what DCOM95 is, so I can't speak to that.
>
Michelle,

The line about "pushing" people to upgrade is what I was reacting to. It seemed to coincide with the notion that MS is trying to force people down the path to upgrading, when, as I believe, the explanation is simply one of a pure business necessity (the need to drop support for Win95, in this case).

As for the WSH, you don't have to check with Win2K. It's not an optional component. In fact, I only know for certain that on Win98 it's optional. Prior to that, it wasn't included.

As to the virus thing, trying to combat script viruses that are sent via email by disabling the WSH is, IMO, brain dead. As I mentioned, it's not optional under Win2K. It may not be (I don't know) under WinMe, and I'd guess that it isn't under WinXP.

The solution is not to let such things in the door. For example, you can't send me a file via email with any extension associated with the WSH. I just won't get it.

As for DCOM (Distributed COM), you'll need it with VFP 6.0 (and I'd assume 7.0) under Win 95. You don't need to worry about it if you're running Win98.