>Thanks. I understand and certainly you have a valid position and of course in some cases getting new runtimes out can be quite a big deal.
>
>My original blanket idiotic idiot statement was triggered by my memory of our IT department when I used to work in a corporation. I wasn’t in that department and they were often considered the ‘enemy’ by most of the rest of the company. It was a Dilbert kind of thing. Whenever a new version of software came out, and I’m talking about end user software like Word, etc. the IT department had to ‘test it’ before they would allow end users to upgrade. Their internal testing period usually took at least a year. It tended to aggravate you to know you couldn’t use the latest version of Word just because some guy who printed the corporate reports at night wouldn’t get around to giving his approval. It still makes me mad. So I guess that came out in my message. Again, sorry!
>
>

Don't sweat it. We've all posted things that we later regretted. It's part of the double-edged sword of newsgroups and threads and email... instant access also means instant expression!

Thanks for respecting my need to push back a little, though.

I share your aggravation at some corporate testing policies -- as I've said, in this case I respect the company's opinion, but goodness knows I have seem overcautious IT managers lose the faith of their staff and customers with similar decisions....


>
>>>>>Since you’ve probably twitted me you probably won’t get this, but in any case I still don’t understand your reply. It doesn't make sense. I’m not trying to aggravate you or be argumentative, just to understand.
>>>
>>>If you are, as you say, not recompiling, not doing any testing etc then you are not doing any development. So why is an upgrade discussing even relevant to you at all?
>>>
>>
>>We absolutely recompile and test -- frequently, in fact. But, the QA department at this company has a set regression-testing script for "emergency" recompiles and hot patches.... however, they do not feel comfortable running this somewhat-quick script if the development *software* has changed.
>>
>>There's also a need to create new setup disks, etc., and get the new runtimes over. I realize this isn't a big deal, but they don't have the time right now (they've laid off half the programmers in the last year).
>>
>>All of which gets to the issue from *my* point of view. Forget their pov for a second (even though I think it's legit). From *my* point of view, I need to keep using 7.0 because a client is paying me to keep using 7.0. I would upgrade in a minute if I could also keep 7.0 -- and my paycheck!
>>
>>But I can't.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>But, Robert, I also need to use VFP 7 for an existing client. <<
>>>>>Why?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because they provide an application to a production client base of a few dozen users. They are all swamped, having lost staff over the past year. They have no desire, now, to start recompiling and upgrading: no matter how many assurances you want to give them, they simply will not do so without a few weeks of regression testing. And, frankly, I don't blame them one bit. They have a responsibility to their clients to keep things up and running, they want to be known as a robust software, and their QA head has some very stringent guidelines about what goes out the door.
>>>>
>>>>As for your other point, the use of both products is possible, but, frankly, extremely time-consuming (reinstalls and uninstalls, etc.)
>>>>
>>>>Based on this, I will not be upgrading. This does not, in my book, make me an idiot. It is a business decision, and a valid one.