>Rick,
>
>Assuming that a more widely distributable "public beta" is the subject of your comments...
>
>1) Why do people writing here assume any (significant) additional cost to MS for widening a PUBLIC beta availability when:
>a) it could be available by download only;
>b) it could, by arrangement with MS, be done from some 'volunteer' site (someone proposed that UT might be convinced, for instance);
>c) there is NO bug reporting, thus no added personnel costs, for PUBLIC betas in the first place????
>
>The widespread availability of a public beta would be a first for FP/VFP and so could be newsworthy. I could even see some people from the community taking it upon themselves to write to publications to "inform" them or to reinforce opinion, pointing them to some MS web page that announces the widened beta.
>
>We keep making escape hatches for MS. Ken's initial response on the issue seemed to focus on PIRACY/illegality where the proposal was to accomplish a public beta with the sanction of MS (under the auspices of MS, but not necessarily using any of their valuable resources).
>
>


Jim;

You are pointing to what was stated by Ken and the logic behind it. We have received further enlightenment each time Ken comments on this issue. There will be no “Public” beta for VFP 8.0.

1. “We have a fixed amount of support technicians working on the VFP 8.0 beta, so adding more beta sites than what we have planned would do nothing to help with this, it only adds more work, time, cost, effort to the VFP team.“

2. “Piracy is a serious problem especially for VFP…”.

3. “Giving the beta to DevCon attendees is just a CD and it will not include any beta support, which is not the same as a general public beta”.


Sometimes I think I am getting the message but obviously I am not for every time Ken addresses this issue it changes meaning.

Would it be possible to give people the “CD and it will not include any beta support”? Am I missing something here? If selection #3 did not exist then there would be no confusion.

It might be that Microsoft is concerned about people (developers) getting a copy of the Beta and not upgrading. Now that I can see as a potential problem so put a timestamp on the CD and let it self-destruct.

Perhaps we are members of the “general public” and not VFP developers. That may be the answer! DevCon attendees are considered to be “developers”.

I do get the picture to some extent – there are a limited number of Beta testers and resources. Additional copies of VFP 8.0 will be given to DevCon attendees without support from Microsoft. It is just the logic that bothers me. It is up to Microsoft to run their business. "Mine is not to reason why. Mine is but to do or die".

I blame my asking questions on my mother. She told me, “Curiosity killed the cat. Information brought him back”! Perhaps we have too much information and it is not consistent. :)

Tom