Hi Mark

I went back an re-read your comments and I realize that I mis-understood part of it. I thought you said that a developer was doing a dis-service to their clients if they did not upgrade them to newer versions of VFP.

However, what I now understand you to say was that the developer should have updated his code so that if no longer includes the backward compatible features and to fail to do this is a dis-service to their customers. I agree with you here.

My apologizes.
Simon

>I do not understand how removing backward compatible stuff from VFP 8 affects older apps running under previous versions of FoxPro. I only meant the stuff that remains so Foxbase, Foxplus, FoxPro 2.x, 1.x apps will still run with no code changes when converted and recompiled iin VFP. This type of conversion is a bad idea anyway, IMHO.
>
>>Hi Mark
>>
>>While I like the idea of removing the backward compatible stuff from VFP I do not agree that I am doing my customers a huge dis-service by allowing them to continue to use old version of FoxPro.
>>
>>For a number of clients there is no business justification for change. The application they use meets their business need. Their work has not changed significantly nor is it likely in the next few years. So how can they justify the expense of upgrading and retraining employees when the new application will do exactly what the previous one did only using newer software.
>>
>>This is a growing problem in the software business. For example,Word 97 more than meets my needs. This is true for many software packages. So why go through the agravation of learning a new interface only to do what I did in the old version. Not to mention that fact that every upgrade has the potential of breaking (and usually does in my experience) some other software.
>>
>>I personally will be upgrading to VFP8 but my customers may continue using older versions until it makes business sense to do otherwise.
>>
>>Simon