>Pete,
>
>I take no exception to your opinion or your position on this issue. I just have some comments that answer some of your questions.
>
>>However, the one thing that bothers me that I can’t get used to is the increase in bugginess of programs, from operating systems to applications.
>
>Bigger programs with more lines of code will, statistically, have more bugs. Sort of a law of physics per se.

Agree with this; but it should be moderated by having better troubleshooting tools these days, and OOP is supposed to reduce the frequency of errors.

>
>>I haven’t been using VFP very long, and certainly haven’t pushed it to the limits as some of you have done, but it does fail almost daily (or is it the OS?).
>
>I see lot's of people saying this about VFP yet I use it 10-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week and it doesn't regularly fail on me. It rarely fails and when it does fail it is invariably due to my code in one way or another. Granted, it would be nice for Fox to recover from my stupidity, but then again it is MY stupidity.
>

I tried to be careful about accusing VFP of failing 'almost daily'. That's why I put OS in parentheses -- which may be where the problems occur. However, a program shouldn't bring my whole system down because I made a stupid error -- that's what error-trappinng is for.

>>I never heard the attitude, “It’s a small bug, and there is a work-around, so don’t worry about it.” When did these changes occur? I never heard of using the general public for ‘beta’ testing; when did this start and why?
>
>Purely a business decision. I think it was Bill Gates that coined the phrase "Good enough software". That is software that is good enough for the majority of users, probably not good enough for the high end users, but then most users of software are not high end.
>

I hear a lot of complaints from my low-end friends about the frustrations of having their PC's crash because of "good enough software". This is the attitude that really frustrates me, because it is so unprofessional.

>>Is it that consumers would rather have the latest application with more bells and whistles (and some good features) – and bugs -- than an older, dated system that is rock-solid?
>
>It a nutshell, yes. The consuming public wants new releases regularly. Companies that do not produce new releases regularly go out of business quickly.
>
>>Tracy Holzer, on a different thread, said, ”That does not make it okay to have to purchase the next version in order to fix 'bugs' in the current version. Bugs should be fixed and provided free-of-charge for all customers that invested in the current version. Enhancements are expected in new versions.”
>
>We can all dream.
>
>>But Craig Bernston replied, “Can you name one major software company that works this way?” Well, I can’t think of one.
>
>But once we wake up reality hits us in the face.