>>>>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? <<<
>>
>>
>>Experience and knowledge. Microsoft needed a fast and efficient data
>engine. People on the Fox team are the ideal people to do this.
>>
>>BTW, many large companies do this. For example, everyone at Computer
>Associates changes jobs every two years (which in this case explains alot).
>
>
>Jim Booth mentioned pretty much the same thing and I can see where that
>would be an excellent idea. Upon reflection I worded my comment above
>rather poorly. I didn't mean why would they move people from the point of
>view of the individual being moved but the projects they get moved to. In
>other words, if project A returns $X in profits per man-hour in
>development, and project B returns $3X/man-hour, then project B is going to
>get the attention. Let's say there are 15 people on the VFP development
>team. (I have no idea how many there are, I just pulled that number out of
>the air.) If moving those people to some other project makes MS more money
>than working on VFP would, VFP loses. I realize that they can hire more
>people but it still has to be worth their while to do so. Maybe it is and
>maybe it isn't. I don't know.
>
>
>Gary J. Sibio
>Mr. Travel, Inc.
>
> >>> Please Mr. Gates, can we have our computers back? <<<
I don't agree with this. MSFT has a HUGE R&D dept. Many of the projects they work on never get to be real products, but are simply ideas or even new technologies. These things may never make a single penny for MSFT, but money is spent there.
Craig Berntson
MCSD, Microsoft .Net MVP, Grape City Community Influencer