Kevin,

Yet again we give MS an "excuse" without them having to say a word.
In this case you supply three:
1) "...MS wants enterprise customers...".
2) "...The .DBF format will never be inherently 'secure' because of its file-based mode".
3) "File-based DBMS's are potentially more susceptible to corruption...".
#2 and #3 are roughly the same.

The first is guaranteed a fallacy - MS wants ALL people and businesses as its customers. There is no doubt about that. And they don't only want their business use, but they are after leisure activities too. MS want the whole kit-and-kaboodle!

#2 and #3 both state the "weakness" as being the "file-based" aspect of .DBFs or other DBMS's. You don't seem to be aware that SQL-Server is file-based too. It is. Even MS Access can be said to be "file-based". All data is ultimately stored in files for that matter. "Set-based" vs "record-based" has absolutely nothing to do with security, neither as regards access nor as regards corruptibility.

MS knows full well that it is one HUGE customer base out there. In fact they built their business most successfully on exactly that fact. When there were no PCs, mainframe software products cost at least $50,000 (often MUCH more) plus an annual "maintenance" cost of 10% (later 15%, and who knows where it is now). The PC software business was able to deliver good and useful software for $500. or less, volume more than mitigating the pricing difference as far as profit is concerned.

MS makes little money on VFP compared to what it does on SQL Server. But MS knows that there is a world of difference between the support and maintenance of SQL Server database files/applications and VFP (or similar) files/applications. While I think that MS is making strides at simplifying the maintenance and support of SQL Server database files, they still have a very long way to go to achieve it!
MS knows that not every business can afford the expense of SQL Server itself and the inherent cost of manpower to maintain/support it. In fact it knows that MOST businesses cannot do so.

MS (that is, more than its VFP Team) needs to acknowledge that VFP is the best candidate for all of those businesses that cannot do SQL Server (they currently tout MS Access for this) and that VFP itself includes features and facilities to expedite a companies' migration to SQL Server should that day come.

cheers


>If MS had its way ... this database solution never would've existed....
>Thus, VFP would never be 'marketed' to the outside world for one BIG reason :
>It does not fit into their revenue generating 'philosophy'.
>
>Like you I wish MS would match the technical exellence of VFP with marketing efforts, but you are right about $$ driving the bus, but there are a couple of other items that need to be understood (and there are related to $$ too) -- MS wants enterprise customers and a stand alone VFP system is not that attractive because:
>
>1.) The dbf format will never be inherently 'secure' because of its file based mode. MS could redesign it to be more secure, but why -- they have sql*server.
>
>2.) File-based DBMS's are potentially more succeptiple to corruption due to power outage, network crashes and the like.
>
>Having said all that I am continuing to use VFP and will continue to do so for the foreseable future. It is a great solution for low priced applications for both small and big companies and a great tool for developing large scale applications with SQL*server and the web -- and it is really cheap!! That 'cheapness' is what makes so attractive and I guess is part of its 'problem' too -- although I believe the security and potential corruption issues are greater when it comes to what MS believes the enterprise customer needs.
>
>Kevin