Very good points. I did not address the .0 issue. It is true that many companies, as a matter of policy, will not adopt .0 software.

Not adding a minor feature or 2 to a SP is wrong and misguided IMO, given the goals that MS has.



>John,
>
>I think you read that I too take your position on this matter.
>
>Adding to your list, SP5 gave us a new feature too - BITMAP in CONFIG.FPW.
>
>Ken has laid down the law on the issue. I think it is a mistake too, not only from the no new functionality issue but also in the fact that Ken is saying that no SP is even in the planning stage at this time.
>
>Sure, this is a tack to take to try to boost sales NOW. But there are lots of people who hold back on any .0 as a matter of policy. And stability is one thing, but malfunction is quite another. As I noted elsewhere, over 30 BUGS have been reported for VFP7 just here (on the UT) since it hit the streets. Some were C00005 (ref. stability)
>
>In any case, I think it would be a big mistake on the part of MS to make any serious decision about VFP until at least a few months AFTER SP1 is made available AND integrated into the shipping product.
>
>
>Jim
>
>>>I can see both sides of the argument on this one - especially the one about where do you cut things off to make a whole new release.
>>>
>>
>>I can see both sides as well. To say that SP's address bug fixes only is simply wrong. While there is no set defintion of what SP's are for, historically, they have addressed the following issues:
>>
>>1. Bug Fixes.
>>2. New Features that did not make it into the primary release.
>>
>>Both of these issues were addressed in SP 3.
>>
>>As for the current status of what SP's are, I think one has to narrow the viewpoint to the VFP context only. VFP is in a precarious position. It's market is limited. Therefore, its revenue sources are limited. What new features can go into the product are constrained by budget as well as the overall strategic focus of a company. With such a limited space, VFP can only grow so far. This is where I see the other side of the argument, taking features that would otherwise be in 8. OTHO, if enough people do not upgrade to 7, VFP will not have an economically justifiable reason to exist. That is the one thing you did not hear in Ballmer 1:30 video. On one hand, MS is committed to VFP. However, the committment is only to the extent that VFP makes money. If the number of upgrades are too small for 7.0, MS will not recoup the investment in the product. And, let's not forget the administrative overhead associated with the product.
>>
>>This is the crux of my argument: provide the best possibility of ensuring an 8 will exist: add a feature or two in the first service pack that should have been in the product 5 years ago. Take a quick poll on the UT and you will get a list a mile long.
>>
>>The nonsense that SP's are only for bug fixes is short-sided, and in the long-term, is bad for the product. It is especially troubling given that history has shown that SP's are used to introduce new features.
>>
>>This is an interesting situation. On one hand, I am very much against the VFP Product manager on this one. At the same time, I am advocating a position that I think is shared by more people than not.
>>
>>Ken has put the cattle call out to get people to upgrade. My sense is that the numbers are not where MS would like them to be. This is only a guess. I don't have hard numbers to prove this assertion. I also know that I am not the first person to make this suggestion to the VFP team. I don't go go shows anymore so I don't have the face to face contact.
>>
>>Perhaps I should not care. In 2 years, I am going to be practcing law, not programming. Still, I feel a lot of loyalty to the community and the product. With respect to loyalty, I stress the product and not people that work on the team. As far as the community goes, it is defintitely the people, people like yourself. You and I have had our differences in the past, but that is what makes the community strong.
>>
>>
>>I am simply one developer trying to make constructive suggestions...