Mike (and Alejandro),

I would guess that the VFP 6 "Programmer's Guide" is out of print simply because VFP6 has been superceded. I too have a copy of the book, confirming its existence.

When VFP7 first came out I remember reading somewhere that there weren't to be printed copies of VFP7 documentation. Sadly, I don't have the reference handy, but I recollect it being at least 'semi-official' and feeling bothered by it. But then I remembered Hentzenwerkes.

I see efforts like Whil Hentzen's (most tangibly) and a huge number of other key individuals who provide their time and energy and wisdom to the VFP community at large as critical to the continued evolution of VFP. As long as we have an active community that continues to make itself evident in various ways MS has to continue development and support of VFP. We have influence just by being!

Efforts like the 10-year "card" and fly-by also serve nicely as "reminders" to MS that publicity can cut both ways.

The question to me is: are there sufficient indicators that MS is abandoning VFP as to warrant major action by a wider slice of the community? To me, at this time, the answer is "no, not yet.".

We get no help from MS as regards growing the VFP developer base while at the same time MS uses every opportunity to push .NET (even disparaging other of their own and others' 'tools' in doing so), sowing FUD about VFP and other products too. And some VFP luminaries are out to aid and abet MS in their mission.

My effort at improving the chances of growing the VFP developer base has been aimed at the quality of the documentation, focusing primarily on the "Command Reference". Any improvement, of course, rests wholly in the hands of the MS staff responsible for the documentation, so we have to hope for the best there.

As others have said, I too feel that the most important thing is to GROW THE VFP DEVELOPER BASE. I see any effort in this regard as worthwhile. I also think that if someone can come up with some strategy(s) to do this, and discuss it here, that something positive can result. If not on one, then on some other, sometime. I suppose that persistence is the key.

Bill Gates has helped a tad by acknowledging that .NET has several years to go yet before it can be used to achieve MS' vision of the future processing environment.
And 95%+ of U.S. business is SMALL BUSINESS (at least according to a recent statement by President Bush) where .NET is too lofty/expensive/complex to consider. Bill Gates knows this too, and MS offers precious few products that fit that (so called) "niche" - a niche that is bigger than its surroundings!.

The UT continues to get queries from people only now considering converting FoxBase and FPD and FPW applications to VFP or something else. That tells us all, including Mr. Gates, something about the longevity/migration of valuable working applications. Add to this the installed/working applications developed in other languages and Mr. Gates has a definite problem on his hands - facing conversion instead of simple implementation for the first time.
The MS OSes will have several years (like, more than 10) where they still have to support the huge base of installed/working applications. It is in MS' best interests to continue to enhance the tools that serve business so well TODAY, if only as insurance against an only modest adoption of .NET by the planet.

It should be possible to expand the developer base for VFP in such circumstances., with or without the help of MS. It would be much easier with MS' assistance on th marketing front, but it is not impossible without them. Sometimes, in the fickle marketplace, products succeed in spite of their creators' efforts.
cheers



>>Tried to find a manual for VFP 7.0 in MS Press and not only could I not find one, but the search did not even come up with the Programmer's Guide for version 6.0, a book I know exists because I have it.
>>
>>I believe the directive from Bill is, hide VFP and all products other than .NET from all but the most determined programmers. Eventually they can stop development because "there is no interest". Cheez! I wonder if those of us that have invested a lot in learning this wonderful tool would have a case for suing MS for afecting our livelihood.
>>
>>What do the lawyers here say?
>>
>>Alex
>
>Hi Alejandro,
>
>I can confirm that there is a sudden dearth of VFP-related books, having recently scoured the shelves at Wordsworth in Harvard Square. A few years ago, they had a whole VFP section. Now there's not a single title to be found.
>
>I'm no lawyer, but I think the strongest argument one could make is that Microsoft appears to have pursued a systematic pattern of deceptive pseudo-promotion of VFP aimed at destroying all significant competition in the mid-range DBMS marketplace. It could also be argued that this behavior has done substantial, quantifiable financial harm to Microsoft's customers who have been deceived over the years by these practices. But I would expect that the issue of punitive damages, broader anti-trust ramifications, and negative PR value might weigh more heavily in the outcome of any such lawsuit.
>
>Mike