>>That survey was fatally flawed by the absence of a choice to leave the product name unchanged.
>>
>>Beyond that, it is discouraging that the name which garnered the most votes is false and misleading. VFP is *not* a .NET tool. Perl is, Eiffel is, even COBOL is, but Visual FoxPro from Microsoft is not. Go figure.
>
>I too was disappointed that the name with the most votes was dishonest.
>That the question was clear enough (maybe not the choices < s >) tells me that many people are desperate for the marketing 'advantage' imparted by that nomenclature. I see that as telling, myself, even if disappointing.

(snip)

Jim, I would not go so far as to call VFP.NET dishonest. Maybe a bit sleazy, but sheesh, MS can define the precise meaning of this silly term any way they like. It's entirely up to Microsoft and its marketing wizardry how they present exactly what is the relationship of VFP to .NET, right up front. Why assume they must state the case dishonestly?

Now consider that absurd .NET ad of Microsoft's with the bicyle maker and his putative parts supplier, "One degree of separation". I ask you, in all honesty, which offends your sense of truth and integrity more deeply, that ad, or the name VFP.NET?

I do see your point about the poll, though. There may be some argument about the poll's exact meaning, but the gist of it is very clear. It was surprising how strong a showing VFP.NET had over VFP for .NET, which even I wimped out and voted for. Either way, the association would be beneficial. For that matter, I wasn't kidding in my reply to John Harvey, either. VFP Against .NET, VFP .NOT. .NET, John's VFP.NET.NOT, anything that gives us a relationship to .NET, is better that the absolute nothing we've got now.

Mike