>You failed to understand my post. It is regrettable that I asked you for clarification and gave examples of things that would lead me to believe that Microsoft is not always first. I apparently did not convey what I had intended.
>
>To me this is an absolute statement from you, “However, it seems to me that Microsoft products will always be a step ahead on features when compared to third-party tools”.
>
>If you had used Borland’s C++ and Microsoft's version you would know what I meant. Perhaps you have used both products as I have and it is a matter of personal preference.

I have both and use Borland's tool because that's what I'm required to use. However, it's not fair to compare these two to .NET tools. Under .NET, Microsoft totally controls the runtime. What I'm questioning is if that will give the Microsoft tools and advantage. If a new feature is added to the runtime, will Microsoft languages take advantage of it before third party languages?

>I stated FoxPro and not VFP by the way.

Noted.

> There was a FoxPro before Microsoft bought the company.

Yup. I used it.

>
>My point was that Microsoft was not always first. Apparently I am unable to convey that fact to you. The word “historically” was used by me.
>
>Microsoft released its first version of Word on November 16, 1983. Again I do not see evidence that “Microsoft products will always be a step ahead on features when compared to third-party tools”.

Again, I wasn't talking about non-development tools. I'm talking strictly about .NET development tools and languages. (I thought that's what this tread was about.)

>
>I just wanted to know what you considered Microsoft tools. You seem to state tools and product in the same context and it was not clear. I understand what a product is. In fact a third party tool is also a product.

Development tools (VS .NET) and languages (C#, VB.NET, C++ .NET). Again, strictly speaking about development tools and languages for the .NET runtime.

>
>“At the risk of sounding like JVP, the arguement is a bit flawed”.
>
>I am afraid you do not understand what you said or my reply. I was not the one who made the absolute statement but I did ask for clarification. Too bad we cannot communicate as I am interested in what you meant.

I hope I've cleared it up. Unlike JVP, I think we can communicate.

>
>I do not intend for this to be a war of words by the way. If you wish we can just drop it. This will be a short week - I hope!
>