Dan,

It is all about plauseable deniability and the good cop bad cop tactic. From a corporate umbrella standpoint - you can bet that the mantra is .net, .net, .net. Fox is not even on the radar screen. Clearly, that is a viewpoint that departments other than VFP can adopt. But, it does create problems for the VFP team. Specifically, it creates an issue when Ken says that he is working hard to increase the visiblity of Fox. The fact is - it does not good when there is no over-arching support (an argument I have made for 2+ years). The only solice is that the Fox team can bascially say - with all honesty - that they tried and are trying. But when you look at it from a corporate-wide standpoint - the strategy is clear - MS - if given the choice - wants you in a MS product other than Fox (.Net) But, if you are not going to move to .NET - MS wants to keep you in Fox. It makes for a VERY strange situation.

Bascially, as far as its customer base is concerned - MS wants its cake and eat it too. It goes somthing like this: We are comitted to our Fox developers - but we wont meaningfully innovate the product. We encourage Fox developers to look at .NET. But for those Fox developers who wish to continue using Fox - we will support you... This gets you back to the innovation issue again. It is like an Escher drawing - the one were the one hand is drawing the other hand - is drawing the other hand, etc, etc.

It is all double-speak. You only get into trouble if you listen to it. The deal is this - if you like Fox - for the next few years - there is zero problem in continuing to use it - so long as you are not depending on support from OTHER areas of the company. Your visio example is a good illustration of the point.

The fact is, all of this is decided at levels far above Ken...It is a dilemma indeed. Fox is entrenched in some areas that does not make it feasible for MS to pull the plug. With a shrinking market - it is getting to be harder and harder to manage. Why do you think MS has effectively outsourced the whole localization of Fox? This used to be done in house. Its good business - and a great way to reduce cost.

As I have said before - Fox is the only MS product eligible for food stamps. The only thing more absurd is the straight-face that some can still maintain while making their arguments.


< JVP >


>I apologise for jumping in. I also want to thank you for the job you have been doing for VFP in general.
>
>In my senile view - oops - senior citizen view -your point on Visio is completely correct from a short term business unit view. I'm sure Viso in the short term IS more profitable without adding support for VFP. But it is damaging for Microsoft as a whole - ignoring sister products reduces the other product's visibility, sale potential and credibility, which in turn harms the company as a whole.
>
>Nobody would expect Viso to support VFP if VFP were not owned by Microsoft, but when it IS owned by MS and is STILL ignored you really have to wonder about VFP. If VFP is profitable enough to continue as a part of MS then it should be promoted at least as BEING part of the MS family and supported as such. Including references to it as a database product in MS books -something not done in several I've read. If it is not profitable enough, then kill it and the rest of the company CAN ignore it.
>
>My 2.5 cents worth. Visibility and credibility are linked, and credibiliity helps sales. One division should never shoot another in the foot -or anywhere else. Any coherence in the above is probably accidental.
>
>Dan