>Given Office's market share competition isn't really a problem so I imagine the issue is just to distinguish another new version - and encourage upgrades. Significant difference will probably be the CLR language so .NET seems appropriate.

Yea, a CLR language that 95%+ of its users will never touch.
Competition isn't really a problem for VFP either, but in our case it's because no one else knows about it :( (is that the correct thingy - I never use them).

Seems to me that XML is more THE factor of .NET than CLR, and I'd say that VFP DOES play in that realm. But, here again, as long as we (users) make up the rules instead of giving MS the opportunity to TELL US the rules, this quandry will remain.

cheers


>
>OTOH there is pretty much nothing about Foxpro that makes it .NET. Putting that in the name would be an empty gesture... and and frankly I don't think it would make a bit of difference.
>
>What will make a difference is anything the Fox team can do to make VFP be seen and used as a tool for SQL Server apps. And I think that is in fact the direction they are taking.
>
>>SNIP
>>>A great Foxpro product, named as such, is surely preferable to a badly named product which would be instantly seen as a very bad (no CLR) .NET product.
>>
>>Charles,
>>
>>I might debate "...badly named..." but I won't.
>>But there is going to be, according to articles, an Office.NET. Now will it be "legitimate" because the (former) VBA will now be CLR? If so, that also seems a stretch, given that most people using Office do not touch VBA.
>>In other words, I'd assess the name Office.NET as being by far more of a marketing ploy than a technical accuracy and I wonder why VFP couldn't benefit from the same consideration?
>>
>>cheers
>>>
>>SNIP