>SNIP
>>
>>What I don't buy is the notion that you're being "pushed" into upgrading the OS. Win95 is 6 years old. It's life cycle is done. You can't expect a company to support older versions of software indefinetely. It makes no sense from any business perspective since it becomes cost prohibitive. If you're unwilling to upgrade the OS, then some question must exist as to the real need to upgrade to VFP 7.0 in the first place.
>>
>SNIP
>George,
>
>I think that the notion that we are (subtly) "pushed" to upgrade is an accurate one.
>For instance, I was perfectly happy with Office97, and still am. But a recent client had Office2000 - when they had purchased Office97 was not available (they *may* have been able to get it from MS or some obscure supplier, but not from regular outlets).
>So I HAD to buy Office2000 to work with all of their stuff. Even worse, Word (and apparently FrontPage) does not work correctly on my machine! Fortunately for me Word was not the critical part.
>Even worse for me, I bought it 22 days before the date of availability for a FREE upgrade to Office XP. Even though I had reported the problem and didn't get a satisfactory fix, my plea for the free upgrade went unfulfilled.
>
>MS makes software with nice new features and takes the old stuff off the market (I have no complaint with that, that's business). Then there is a "need" to upgrade, if only to stay workable with other clients' tools. I'd say that's subtle pushing.

Jim,

While I sympathize, I've had zero problems with Office 2000 and like it much better than 97. That out of the way...

In this instance, it's difficult to justify that one is being "pushed". Like it or not (and for myself, I love it) Win95 is unsupported after this year. It makes no sense to include Win95 on the system requirements, since it can only be effective for a maximum of about 5 months after the initial release of a product that will be current for about three years. Simple as that.