>It could be ok if it would only be a matter of money. But as I noted in my original post it's more than that.
>
>And at some point it becomes a matter of principles, a matter of respect.
>
>I can't believe that they (MS) did'nt already think of all of the upgrading possibilities before establishing their pricing strategy.
>
>The big question could be now. Why would any developer want to upgrade? At this point upgrading does'nt make sense. A developer won't upgrade to something if he can't use the previous version. Then who is going to upgrade from VFP to a newer version? Is'nt VFP a developer tool? Like I said it does'nt make sense.
>
>

Hi Denis.
I think a large part of the problem is simply the technology with which we work. It is changing and evolving very fast so we are forced to upgrade or purchase new tools, constantly. I saved a few examples of VFP things from some magazines for 2 years, so I could experiment with them as soon as I had time. When I had time they were way out of date already.

My cousin is a Landscape Architect and I am envious of his work. He has projects he did 25 years ago which are just getting better & better. The "canvas" he works on (earth and plant life) is evolving slowly over millions of years. The "canvas" we are working on is working toward the speed of light. There is nothing I am working on now that will be around 25 years from now, maybe not even 10 years from now. Things change too fast.

So we can partially blame MS but I think they are just one of the players. A large part of the problem is our choice of professions.

Regards,