>>However, VFPs revenue generating model is outdated.
>
>What does this mean? And what has this got to do with how you can use a tool to build app's that you can sell or rent to your end-users?
>
>
>>Macroscopically VFP does not work for MS.
>
>I am not privy to the financial accounts of the VFP unit within MS. However, they seem to feel its worth it to keep developing new versions of it and releasing SP's, etc.

When it comes to databases MS prefers to sell on a per user per processor license basis. As with SQL Server.
OR
MSDE which is a subset of SQL Server.

VFP database engine does not 'fit' in this overall strategy.

For development languages : everything integrated with Visual Studio .NET.
Each high level languages relies on the same IDE and the CLR.
Again, VFP does not fit.
MS generates plans on generating revenue for VS .NET in many ways.
VFP is not part of this because it is not a .NET language.

\>>I do not understand why people cannot separate one fact from the other fact.
>
>Please point to some posts here on the UT where you see people not being able to seperate these two issues.

Earlier in this thread Jim Nelson acknowledges this issue. So that is 1.
If you like I can hunt through and find more examples.


>
>
>>It is not MS's job to provide me with a permanent income merely because I've given them a lousy $500 for the latest copy of VFP.
>
>Please point to some posts here on the UT where you see people saying this.

I am not countering anyone's specific statement here.
And with that said let`s get out our C# manuals shall we?

>
>
>>I wish VFP were not dying and then I would not have to go through the arduous process of learning C#.NET.
>
>Learning is part of the territory. Buying and using even a new tool for your main dev tool requires learning. Integrating with third party products, eg Office, requires learning. Learning a new dev tool is also fine.
>
>
>>But, do I possess the divine right of stagnation because I gave MS $500 for a copy of VFP 8 a year ago?
>
>Who, besides yourself, has said this here on the UT?


great then let`s get out our C# manuals, delphi or etc etc..
because there is really no need to be concerned with how MS treats VFP.
Because we are all learning new things.

>
>

>>Instead what we have is a group of people fighting a war that was lost a couple of years ago engaged in a siege mentality.
>
>Yes, the death of VFP can be clearly traced all the way back to 1993. Thats 10 years of doomsaying. And VFP8 is here, and VFP9 to come. I suppose if one cannot predict accurately then one should predict often. Sooner or later you'll get it right.

The popularity of VFP is waning ; there are less and less monolithic VFP-only based apps in Ontario. I cannot speak for the rest of the world. However, based upon the number of high profile people doing less and less development in VFP (and not being replaced by others) it is not much of a logical leap to see what is going on in the rest of the North America.

>
>Dave, imo this recurring and ongoing argument is not about pro-VFP'ers defending VFP against all logic and reason. This issue is about the 10 years of beating the VFP is dead drum, year in year out, all the while MS continues to improve the product and some of us continue to make money out of it. Well, the doomsayers can beat it just a little bit longer I guess :)

Its not doom. It is a carefully calculated analyses of the tastes and preferences of IT Managers (who supply me with billable hours).

If you disagree then have fun spending 40+ hours a week in VFP.

:)