>Al,
>
>I've "got a bee in my bonnet" on the topic, but it truly has nothing to do with GeorgeT or anyone else's response. Like many (most?) of us here, squeezing optimal performance out of my systems and my apps. interests me greatly.
>
>So I guess our discussion of the topic (thus the discussion here, since only you cared to say much) is at an end.
>
>cheers
>
>PS I've got tons of numbers, some of which were presented here and others that I have put on Wiki. The initial numbers I posted here did seem to catch your interest, as I recollect.
>But no, I am in no position to do exhaustive testing, nor do I see that it should be my job to do so... no one had to show that Intellisense was worthwhile for VFP before it was done, no one had to prove that a CursorAdapter was a good thing to pursue. The VFP Team no doubt did some internal evaluation, then decided to proceed.
>As I see it, my "job" in this is to pique sufficient interest as to get the attention of MS to do something about this issue. Their first step might well be to do such testing to confirm/deny the benefits of doing something on the issue. They have the tools/skills to do so. I don't.

If you want to get MS to "do something about it" you'll need to present them with a business case. The VFP8 enhancements were made to keep the product viable in the face of fierce competition. NTFS is in no danger of dying out if not enhanced - it has no competition in the MS OS world.

At this point I'd talk either with a HD manufacturer or an outfit like ExecSoft to gauge interest:

- a HD maker might support a utility, because it might let them distinguish their drives in a fiercely competitive business
- a utility vendor like ExecSoft might be able to offer a product whose functionality is not already duplicated in Windows itself