>Nary a mention of MSDN Subscriptions in that message, but that is quite beside the point. What concerns me more is that you are now saying that merely handing Microsoft a couple of hundred bucks to upgrade to VFP 7.0 doesn't count for sh*t as a show of support for VFP. What you mean to say is that Microsoft would greatly prefer to pressure us into purchasing a larger bundle of software than we thought we wanted.

What exactly is your point? Microsoft wants you to upgrade to VFP 7. They would prefer that you get an MSDN subscription instead. If I were Microsoft, I would too. Are they twisting your arm? No. Is anyone forcing you to use VFP? No.

>I don't want to beat up on you, Ken, but you seem to have a knack for putting your foot in your mouth, if I may be so bold as to say so. Why not take a little more time to think before you knock off another one of those glib replies from your marketing phrasebook. Here is my suggestion for a more sensible way to present things: encourage people to upgrade to VFP 7.0 if they haven't done so. Point out that they should then give serious thought to Microsoft's MSDN Subscription upgrade, after they have purchased VFP 7.0. Sounds like a good deal, for those who are interested. When you turn it the other way around, Ken, it doesn't fly. If that sequence of purchases doesn't help VFP, both in the VFP7 purchase, and in the MSDN Subscription, there is something very seriously screwed up.

Why upgrade first to VFP 7.0, then consider upgrading to MSDN? That does not make any sense. If you are upgrading to VFP 7.0, then it's pretty much assumed you are upgrading from VFP 5.0 or 6.0. If you are using version 5 or 6, then you are eligible for the MSDN upgrade, rather than the full-subscription price.