>>>I've read J. Booth's message a little more carefully and it doesn't really >>apply to what I was saying. I am sorry. Let me try to be a little >>clearer. I've been told that we are the ones responsible from keeping a >>product from dying. Which means we would have to supply our own brand of >>marketing. If we were to follow Mr. Booth's advice, the customer is not >>going to really care what tool created the solution, so this would really >>not help our cause. >>> >>>How much responsibity can we afford to lay on MS's shoulders. We have >>spent the time and the money. If we really feel that VFP is a worthwhile >>product than the least we can do is spread the word any way we can. The >>point we don't have to sit and watch. We can play an active hand. >> >>What will keep VFP alive is one factor and it's not is VFP profitable >>although it is related to that. The real question is: Can Microsoft make >>more money with VFP than they would if they used the resources it takes >>elsewhere. It's not enough for VFP to turn a profit. If MS can take the >>people who work on it and use them on another product and make a bigger >>profit, VFP is dead. I'm not saying that this is wrong, BTW. >> >>Of course spreading the word will help and we can do our bit in this >>regard. Time will tell if our efforts are successful. >> >> >>Gary J. Sibio >>Mr. Travel, Inc. >> >> >>> Please Mr. Gates, can we have our computers back? <<< > > >I disagree with this. Microsoft moves people from one product to another all the time. For example, ADO was developed by former Fox people. > Why would Microsoft move them if they couldn't be used more profitably in the new situation? Gary J. Sibio Mr. Travel, Inc. >>> Please Mr. Gates, can we have our computers back? <<<