>Jim;
>
>Just another viewpoint based upon experience with the medical industry. We would not list bugs with our product for our clients to know what problems we had. We would keep track of all bugs and classify them. Show stoppers got prompt attention.
>
>I can imagine that Microsoft may not want to openly acknowledge bugs in its products. It may be a delicate issue – you never know. Any way you look at it we have a pain where we sit down!

I know that MS has taken marketing "heat" in the past because of extensive bug lists for products - competitors pointing to such lists and posing rhetorical questions.

First, though, VFP is in a different league, especially since we "went our own way". Let the competitors mock us and our chosen product. Having stuck with it this far, we are not too likely to move to theirs anyways.

Secondly, why is it so hard to remember that Fox Software thrived under a policy of full disclosure??????? Their bugs were plainly listed for all to see any time, yet their sales grew and grew and grew!!! That sales may have tapered off after MS bought FP might have lots to do with a false Gartner Group report, but the fact that bug lists essentially stopped may have been an important one too.

Finally, if the company (MS) is going to openly state as fact that products involving millions of lines of code used in thousands of permutations and combinations cannot possibly be bug-free, then don't they have some obligation to keep us INFORMED of those bugs??? I bet that the medical industry has to report anomolies to a government agency, resulting in their being available (possibly through "Freedom of Information") to the public at large.

Continuing to accept the current situation as regards VFP bug reporting is unhelpful to us all.

>
>Tom
SNIP