Hi Bob,

And I think you define a legitimate concern (i.e. no more standalone VFP available, but MSDN ONLY)...

Many here have 'convinced' managements at their own firms or of app. purchasers to buy a box of VFP simply to make diagnosis and repair more efficient.
I doubt that springing for MSDN would be realistic in such situations.

I must also add that I agree with your general thrust - that a VFP box can hardly be counted as something else whereas a beancounter can make a MSDN subscription look like whatever s/he wants!

I also have a real problem believing that any kind of "survey" gives good and accurate information, not to mention possible wild interpretations. Of course MS might have redefined the word "survey" to mean feedback provided by things like Windows Update and other buried 'phone home' features of Windows.

cheers

>Hello Ken,
>
>Respectfully, I disagree
>
>If VFP is not properly being represented in the MSDN numbers, and you and others push developers to use MSDN as the preferred distribution channel for VFP, and MS says it's de-emphasizing VFP because sales are low and not generating megabucks for Bill, I think there is a great need for concern.
>
>At some point, if all VFP developers get MSDN to get their Fox fix, MS might decide not to bother with a stand alone VFP product, then they might say 'Look, no sales at all', then it's just a matter of eliminating one small component of the mega-MSDN portfolio, kinda like Visual Studio.
>
>I am not saying the numbers are being misrepresented internally at MS, but who would know. I think the whole point of getting foxheads to get MSDN is to push them down the .NET path and they are willing to take a hit (by providing a better 'value') in order to do it.
>
>Bob
>
>>>There is no need to be concerned about this type of data about VFP within Microsoft, it is not what drives decision making other than the fact that the trend of MSDN subscription usage overall amoung VFP developers is increasing.