It's good that you caught that, but, after re-reading, it's still the same basic argument as Arto pointed out. I think part of the problem is it's still a marketing piece. It really doesn't explain what exactly they're doing with the technologies. Have they developed ASP.NET web applications or .NET web services or both? How are they integrating their legacy VFP code in mtdlls? If they are, then how exactly? It could be with vfp web services, but, nobody really knows. This sort of piece doesn't benefit anybody in this community. There's not enough technical meat to help anybody here and there's a lot of mixed signals about vfp in general.
If you really want people to keep upgrading vfp and also keep .NET in the mix, I would recommend having case studies and examples in the product detailing exactly how we can leverage .NET with VFP. I haven't seen it up to this point. This probably is also the reason that many are saying just use one or the other technology, but, not both vfp and .NET.
If the case were clear as to the benefit of using both technologies together, I think you'd be happy with the numbers of developers upgrading to Europa...
>>Anyone else see that black cat walk by? Better check for changes in the Matrix: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/casestudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14755
>
>The case study a few days ago was in error, but it has been fixed. If you re-read the case study at http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/casestudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14755, it now properly promotes VS .NET and VFP working together and the company still uses VFP in the solution.
>
>I just replied with more details on this in the thread called New case study in MSDN Flash in the Chatter section. One of the changes included VFP being properly included in the matrix in the side bar with a link to the VFP web site on MSDN.