>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.

How will you ever know if you're not a customer. The best way to sell any product is by word of mouth. You've heard numerous non-MS people tell you to buy VFP& because it's the best yet.

>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?

There are still many, new MS products that don't have these measures.

>
>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?

You're right, we shouldn't .. but we should care that MS produces it at all. I'm not going to say that MS will kill VFP, only that we should support the product.

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

What MS can do for me is continue working on the best development tool out there. I've already shown to MS that I support those efforts.

>
>I'm a bit concerned that MS is adding features to VFP that few other than gurus can understand or use.

So, you are saying the only gurus can use Intellisense? Applications at every level are getting more complicated and sophisticated. I'm glad that MS is putting in the things in the product that let me create those applications.

>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.

Once again, look at Intellisense. It alone is worth upgrade.

>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.

That's not the fault of MS. I don't use SDT and I never have data corruption. If you properly architect the solution, the chances of data corruption are very small.

>
>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.

If MS really wanted to do that, they'd just do it. MS has killed products in the past and will in the future. VFP is not one of them. In fact, Ken clearly stated that MS Executives are interested in growing the market.

>
>My main point is that it's been a long time since we saw a breakthrough improvement in the Fox.

Huh??? What??? Obviously you don't follow things. The Intellisense in VFP is totally unlike any other. The Fox team has demonstrated it to the VB and VC++ team. However, do you know what most impresses the other teams? Something we've had for years ... the command window.

> 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.

Once again, Intellisense is like in no other product. It works better and is extensible. It *is* a breakthrough. But then, you wouldn't know that because you haven't used it.

I guess what you are saying is that you want only things that you can put in YOUR apps. You obviously don't care about the many productivity tools that will make your job easier. I recommend you go to http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/fox7help/html/newwhats_new_in_visual_foxpro60.asp and find one...just one... new feature that you can use today. If you can't, you are doing your clients a disservice by keeping them on old technology that their competitors have long since abandoned and are gaining a competitive advantage.

>
>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.

Slowly, older versions do lose support. There is a policy that you can look at. http://support.microsoft.com/directory/lifecycle.asp?sd=gn

>
>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.

I know of several Fox developers here in SLC in their early to mid 20's. Defintately sounds perceived.