>
I stated a simple fact in my reply to the originator of the thread. I can't control how much emphasis you put on my postings.
>

Please Dave..."simple facts" are not stated for the sole purpose of stating them. You intended to convey a message. As I see it, people have concerns about sticking with Fox - and one response by you is to say that the product is being supported until 2010. I don't see how MS's "support" of a tool has much to do with a developer's strategic decision of which tool to use. Can a developer go to a firm, and sell Fox on the basis that it is being "supported" until 2010 - especially in light of the fact that you now see case studies on the MSDN site that promote activities that replace Fox with .NET?

>
The point is that developers continue to use tools that are no longer "supported" by the original vendor. In a lot of cases this is forced by corporate policy and/or ROI reasons that are far more important to companies, than what any particular pundant is spouting as the only tool that is acceptable for software development.
>

I am certainly not arguing this point. Yes - out of necessity, developers continue to use products that are no longer supported. At the same time, developers continue to use products that are supported - but are clearly at the end of their life cycle. As I see it - you tried to make a point and place too much emphasis on the notion that the current version of Fox is supported until 2010.


>
What I said before is that Microsoft has a stated support lifecycle policy for every development tool (VFP and VS.Net2003 being the two current releases). I'd direct folks to these articles: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh%3Ben-us%3Blifecycle&LN=EN-US&x=16&y=13 and http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];lifeDevTool . VFP8 has a finite support lifecycle. VS.Net2003 has a finite support lifecycle.
>

By saying the two have finite life cycle - I see this as an attempt to somehow place the two in the same broad category - in the same box if you will. It is the same argument that some make that "Fox developers are in no worse shape - relative to others in the industry" And it is like saying "Devcon is doing no worse than other conferences on a relative basis." It is absurd IMO to somehow draw a positive inference from the fact that just because .NET and Fox - and all products have limited lifecycles - that somehow - they should be viewed in the same light.

Indeed, while each has a current version and that each version has a limited life cycle - .NET is early in its overall life cyle and Fox is toward the end of its life cycle.


>
That's your spin on a couple of simple factual statements I made in the first post, again I can't control the ways you try to spin my postings. This is the second thread where you've incorrectly accused me of making politically correct statements. I really don't have any motivation to make "politically correct" or "politically incorrect" statements. Methinks you read too much into things.
>

It is not so much that I read too much into things. Rather, I just read. To say you are just articulating facts is itself spin. You had a reason for stating that Fox will be supported until 2010. I believe on several occasions, when people have posted a message about Fox's future - some have stated that the current version is supported until 2010. My response would be "so what?" What does MS's support have to do with broad acceptance of the product? On some level - it does matter. But - there is much more to the story than that.