>I think you misunderstood me. I am not talking about charity here.
>
>>- Company X makes the best product it can afford to make, in the hope of attracting customers
>
>If you don't believe VFP7 is not the best VFP version, then don't buy and don't use it.

Ummm... that's not exactly what I said. From all accounts VFP7 *is* the best-ever VFP. But, to get it (legally), you have to pay. Is it worth it? Only the customer knows for sure.

>Unfortunately there are many people in the world that use copies without purchasing or legally licensing them.

Unhappily, true. However, bear in mind that Office 2000 SP2 and Office XP were both released before VFP7, and both include reasonably effective antipiracy measures. Why doesn't VFP7?

>>Why, exactly, does Microsoft deserve any more commitment than you give to your Stanley hammer, your Ford automobile, or your Coca-Cola beverage??
>
>They don't. But you buy your Stanley hammer if you are a professional carpenter. I know of some professional VFP "carpenters" that did not buy their tools (see above). Another issue is that Stanley will stop improving their hammers if the old models served your purpose indefinitely.
>
>The message to upper management I was talking about is a help to the dedicated VFP development team within Microsoft. They now hace a separate product (from .Net) and a separate budget. Individual sales are now more measurable. What do you think management will say about budgeting for new versions if only a few people upgraded? Ricardo, Ken and company can only do so much. We, the community, have to stand behind them and show that we like the product and buy it. Unfortunaltely that is not what happenned with the certification exams. After years of complaining we didn't have them, they came about and not enough people went for them. Let's not repeat that mistake.

Because you believe (rightly or wrongly) you have "inside information" on how MS develops and markets VFP you have fallen into the trap of making MS's problems your problems. Like any other company, MS should be viewed as a "black box" - they make product, we (hopefully) buy it. Why should we care exactly how MS goes about it?

"Ask not what you can do for MS, but what MS can do for you"

I'm a bit concerned that MS is adding features to VFP that few other than gurus can understand or use. Those users are going to upgrade anyways and are relatively few in number. If MS wants everyone to upgrade right away, put in stuff everyone can use. One example that leaps to my mind would be to license or purchase SDT/FoxFix or equivalent and put it in the box. Hardly a day goes by here on the UT that someone is not wrestling with a data corruption issue. It makes VFP a tough sell for mission-critical databases.

Some might argue that MS is trying to kill the .DBF data store and migrate everyone over to some flavour of SQL Server. If they want to do that, make it as easy to manipulate SS views or recordsets as it is to use the native VFP equivalents.

My main point is that it's been a long time since we saw a breakthrough improvement in the Fox. I don't know how far back you go, but I'll recall my impressions:

- I started out with dBASE III+
- Switched to the almost unknown FoxBASE+ on the recommendation of another regional office. Found the exact same code to run six times as fast on the exact same hardware!
- FoxPro 1.x - Windowing system under DOS! "Large" memory support.
- FoxPro 2.0 - SQL - Select!
- FoxPro 2.5/2.6 - first MS issue. End of the line for DOS but added more work areas, MS-compatible memory manager (i.e run in DOS box under Windows). FPW was first "true" Windows version!
- VFP3 - a true sea-change in the language!
- VFP5 - what VFP3 should have been. Tightened, cleaned-up, debugged. Added OUTER JOINs.
- VFP6 - here I start to have trouble finding "breakthrough" enhancements. Some would argue VFPCOM and Session Class. I have used neither so I can't agree. Early versions of VFP6 were significantly buggy; early adopters suffered.
- VFP7 (which I don't own yet) - Intellisense looks "cool" but it isn't a language enhancement. That and improved Web support can't really be considered breakthroughs if they are already present in other products and we're just playing catch-up.

Looking back on this message I see I ran out of exclamation points on VFP3 (OK, maybe on VFP5). So you can see why long-time Fox users are wondering if we're comparing fins on the '59 Chev vs. the '58 Chev. C'mon MS, give us real breakthroughs!

Another good way to get people to upgrade is to discontinue support on earlier products e.g. VFP5. Cold-blooded, perhaps, but a business decision and certainly valid for a number of reasons.

Finally, if MS is serious about expanding the VFP user base, they need to support college courses to "indoctrinate" developers while their minds are impressionable. It can be argued that the continued existence of Apple Computer is thanks to their far-sighted outreach program into the educational community. If I were MS I'd be concerned about the (perceived) increasing average age of VFP developers.