Hello Jose,

Thank you for your comments. I'm going to start with 6.0, and eventually move over to 7.0. When is 8.0 scheduled for release?

Thanks Again,

Dave



>>My question is this: Is the InstallShield system which comes with 7.0, more >reliable than the old setup wizard? If I created a 7.0 application and made >an installation setup with the VFP's InstallShield, would it reliably >install on Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP >systems? I realize that there is no such thing as 100 percent reliability, >since many users run systems with internal problems, that may crash even >the best installation program. However, I guess I'm looking for some kind >of assurance that VFP's InstallShield is at least adequate for installing >applications on any Windows version from 98 and above.
>>
>
>Hi David
>The InstallShield version shipped with VFP 7.0 is not as easy to use as the native VFP setup wizard, but it's considerably more robust. Because in fact it's just a wrapper around the Windows Installer, which has been widely tested and fixed.
>
>>
>>I have two additional questions: If I initially develop the application in >VFP 6.0, would there be any problems converting it to 7.0? I may want to >create prototype in 6.0, before trying to convince my associates to invest >in full development with 7.0.
>>
>Absolutely no problem in switching (even back and forth, if necessary) from 6.0 to 7.0.
>I'm working on a big development project (near 50 programmers, 1.5 years) which was started on 6.0. Soon the development team's desktops were upgraded to 7.0 while the "release builds" were still done in 6.0. At some point (after VFP7 was stable enough) the production environment was upgraded as well to 7.0
>In such process we didn't have a single problem related to the version change.
>
>>Also, has anyone used 7.0 on a system with only 64MB of ram? I currently >have a 500mhz system running on Windows 98, with 64MB of ram. I'm just >wondering if I can get away with this system for now, if I upgrade to VFP 7.
>
>I don't think the memory requirements for 7.0 are higher than the previous version.. but I didnt tried that configuration.
>
>HTH and bye
>Jose