>>I seem to recall that SP 3 of VFP 6 had quite a few new features.
>
>Are you implying you know exactly why those features were added or exposed?
>
>>With respect to IntelliSense, that feature is nice if you are a developer
>
>So are features like Grid Highlighting and Auto incremementing fields. Can your users tell if primary keys are being generated automatically by VFP or by the Default Value of the field? My users don't even know there is a primary key there! Same thing goes with the grid lines. While the features do round out the product, make it simpler to learn and easier to user, they add value for teh developer. Just like Intellisense.

>>I seem to recall that SP 3 of VFP 6 had quite a few new features.
>
>Are you implying you know exactly why those features were added or exposed?
>
>>With respect to IntelliSense, that feature is nice if you are a developer
>
>So are features like Grid Highlighting and Auto incremementing fields. Can your users tell if primary keys are being generated automatically by VFP or by the Default Value of the field? My users don't even know there is a primary key there! Same thing goes with the grid lines. While the features do round out the product, make it simpler to learn and easier to user, they add value for teh developer. Just like Intellisense.



PMFJI, but grid lines are certainly visible and valuable to the user. I would not categorize them with primary key generation, which is invisible to the user.

IMHO, most features in a development product primarily benefit one of the following groups of people:

- End-users: interested in ease-of-use, data input, features they can see
- Executives: focused on results, mainly reports in printed and electronic forms, but also in EDI and other data transfer scenarios.
- Developers: concerned with pleasing the above 2 groups, plus their own learning curve, maintenance time/costs, reliability, scalability, etc.

(There are other influential groups, but I'm limiting the list for the sake of clarity)

As I read it, John's point is that while VFP7 is a boon for developers, it has much less obvious and tangible benefits to end-users and executives, who influence and/or authorize the purchase of VFP. In many cases, those groups of people do not understand what makes a developer's life easy or hard, nor the relationship between developer productivity and application release times and quality. Therefore, trying to convince an executive that the VFP6-to-VFP7 upgrade is necessary becomes more difficult in the absense of features he/she can see and understand.

In corporations where the choice of developer tools is influenced and/or made by end-users and executives, it is incumbent upon the developer to "sell" the product to these people. This job is more difficult in the absense of features those people can see, understand and appreciate.

Of couse, we could list several features in VFP7 that positively impact end-users and executives, but the real question is how many of those features are both obvious and compelling. Can the average developer demonstrate and explain those features well enough to convince the boss to authorize the upgrade? Or are the features so subtle and/or forward-looking that the decision-maker(s) see no immediate benefit?

From a marketing standpoint, every release should include obvious and compelling features for all 3 groups. I have every hope and expectation that Toledo will deliver for all 3 groups, because leaving any of them out hurts marketing (perception) and sales (reality).

John's (and others') suggestions of slip-streaming a few "most wanted" features into the inevitable VFP SP1 for the purpose of giving obvious and compelling functionality to end-users and executives should not be dismissed. It is marketing-savvy, and could significantly increase sales and acceptance of the product.

Also, by adding a few key features in a SP, Microsoft gets another positive (free) marketing opportunity. Press releases to the media about VFP SP1 can take on a more positive tone. Rather than stating "Microsoft has released SP1 for VFP7 to correct numerous bugs...", the spin can be more balanced, something like "Microsoft fixes bugs, adds features to VFP7 with SP1".

Don't you think most manufacturers would LOVE the opportunity to produce a product, then observe sales and customer reaction, and then have the opportunity to alter the product in order to increase its' sales appeal AFTER the manufacturing run has started, but without huge re-tooling costs? That's what software publishers can do with service releases!

Service Packs are intended to make the product what it was originally intended to be: a technical and sales success.

And, like it or not, because of Microsoft's track record with operating systems and other products, many decision makers refuse to authorize purchase of MS products until SP1 is released. They consider the first SP to be the "report card" proving that the product is release-worthy. So if there was to be no VFP SP1, it would be perceived by many as lack of support by MS, even an indication that they are dumping the product.

Therefore, a SP1 is inevitable. The question is one of purpose. I believe the Fox Team will do everything in their power to use SP1 to boost sales of VFP, as it's in EVERYONE's best interest to do so. It's important that we developers continue to let them know what we would consider the key features, fix, etc. that would get purchase authorized by ourselves, our bosses, etc.