Larry,

I think we can all admit that "bugs" are a fact of life; what differentiates one company/outfit from another is how one deals with them.

One significant (VFP) "bug" (IMO) is the CDX bloat bug, which cropped up in VFP 7.0.

AFAIK, one has to upgrade to VFP 8.0 to remedy this problem; VFP 7.0 SP1 is not a solution.

From a "customer POV", I think a patch (ie. SP2) was called for; that is the way I operate (instead of having users forking out for an "upgrade" to fix a "bug").

You can tell me my "business model" is outdated (ie. I should ***** the user); but I refuse to buy into that.

In short, I "dislike" the way MS operates .... across all their product lines ... which includes the VFP "team" (regardless of the fact that we are on a first name basis with some of these people).

What set me off on this thread in the first place is the fact that some people thought that how MS dealt with bugs was some how "unique" or "revealing" ... to me it was self-evident; accepting the way that MS "supposedly" deals with bugs (and expecting us to buy into it) is what annoyed me.

>Gerry,
>I believe the opinion is shared by more than one person on one product.
>
>IMO, it's really all about priority. Yes there are bugs that have been left over for years. However, it sounds like there are also work arounds for those bugs that have existed for almost as long. If there is a "relatively straight-forward" work around, then the priority drops. It's that simple.
>
>In a utopian society, we could fix all the bugs found and also implement all the enhancements wanted. This isn't Utopia. Priorities are given and level of effort (LOE) is determined. If the LOE is high for a given bug and the priority is low (which it will be if there is a work around), that bug may exist for several development cycles.
>
>Just my $0.02.
>
>>This represents "one person" on "one product line" (kudos to him) ... and "one bug"; I wouldn't take it as an all pervasive philosophy/attitude across MS.
>>
>>I'm still creating work-arounds for VFP 3.0 bugs that (I guess) MS has deemed "too expensive" to fix (boo hoo).
>>
>>What's next ? ... It will be "un-american" to ask for (more) robust software ?
>>
>>Yep ... let's all sit back now and assume MS knows / does best ...
>>
>>Sorry, Garrett ... I don't ship software with "known" bugs, particularly in subsequent releases; and I won't buy into the concept that it's an acceptable way to run a business ... if you care about your users ...
>>
>>>Joe Bork wrote an interesting defense of why Microsoft would ship a product with known bugs. I recommend it.