John,
you may be right and it would be a shame since it's far more fun, at least for me, to not go along with the herd and to develop with something outside of the big MS marketing machine. When the hooks start disappearing to connect vfp up with .NET, LongHorn, etc, then I'll start to worry. Right now I see the interop continuing and Ken's response pretty much confirmed that...
>Claude,
>
>Your premise assumes the sig line is a form of marketing. I don't see it - but that does not invalidate your point - we just disagree.
>
>As far as VFP is concerned, I don't think it has a material effect on MS's bottom line. Keeping the product around fosters a level of goodwill. Far better to keep customers happy than to tick them off. But for sure - keeping customers happy will not come at the expense of profits. At some point - Fox is going to reach a point of diminishing returns and lack of profitability. Given its lack of support for MS's corporate goals and strategy - stronger arguments exist for Fox's ouster than in keeping it around. Just as there is cobol, cics, focus, etc. work out there - so too will there be Fox work.
>
>This much is clear - with Longhorn - people are beginning to see just how far behind VFP is an dwill be in the future. The difference is that in the past - VFP had a chance of making up ground. Given where MS is going - the gap is likely to widen - as opposed to remaining constant. And, as time goes by, Fox will continue to be marginalized based on the lack of support it has for new technology.
>
>Here is an observation - it is likely that in the near future - there will be a new definition of what it means to be a "windows application". It is highly likely that apps built in Fox will not qualify as "windows applications"
>
>Ken works for MS - and as such - he needs to be on board with the corporate message.
>
>< JVP >
>
>
>>John,
>>I think the sig line is just sort of a symptom of a bigger issue. Isn't it sort of a "conflict of interest", not technically, but de facto? It's to Microsoft's and Ken's advantage if they sell everyone here a copy of the latest vfp in addition to VS.net and maybe a couple of other things too. Whereas I think the main purpose of this forum is to stretch vfp as far as it will go. vfp has multithreading, and great web capabilities now, but, do you hear Ken talking about that anymore - no, he'd like you to believe you need VS.NEt to do any of this.
>>I don't think he shouldn't be allowed to do his marketing thing here, but, I think we should bring it up when it seems like that's what he's doing. Of course, this is just my opinion...
>>>Jim,
>>>
>>>I agree that beating a dead horse is not productive. That said, it is a perfectly valid point to have the conversation that focuses on how VFP works with or is affected by new technologies such as Longhorn, et al. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation to focus on irrelevant items such as what Ken includes, or in this case omits, from his sig line.
>>>
>>>< JVP >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>Time to move on....
>>>>
>>>>Good advice.
>>>>Can you PLEASE do so as regards anything that relates to VFP's future?
>>>>We've really heard it all before and it is tiresome by now.
>>>>
>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>< JVP >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Mike. I am the product manager for Visual FoxPro.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see. One would think that one way of creating a relationship between a product manager and the product community would be actually advertising in your signature that you are in fact the product manager for that product.