Thanks!

>>" Self satisfaction is but one stone on the path to glory!:-)
>>
>>I think I read that once in the magazine that Mr. Hefner publishes... <vbg>
>>
>>Sorry, felt a little levity was needed.
>
>You actually read the the articles?:-)
>
>Let me offer a .NET challenge:
>
>Download #16575 . It's a simple VFP speed demo. It has a treeview, toolbar and textboxs. Its got a very small footprint. The treeview has a "hot tracker" option that pushes data to textboxes (it's really fast). It also as some not so obvious features, like the save button is diabled until a change is made to a field. Data can be retrieved by entering a key" in the id field. Entering a non-existant key forwards process to a "new" entry.
>
>The setup on that program is small enough to email. It does not require a SQL back end - so your project can use an Access.
>
>These are the challenges:
>1) The .NET app has to have the same controls
>2) The .NET app has to be as fast in all data reads, pushes and writes.
>3) The .NET app has to small enough to email it's setup.
>4) You don't have to wory about how to instruct the user to set up a DNS for your .NET version of that program.
>
>Put your .NET where your heart is - and show me (i'm not from missouri!).
>If you can do the first three without hour glasses popping up - then I will be a believer!
>
>No techno excuses. The program is well documented and only uses a couple of tables with just a few fields.
>
>I like VFP because I can write apps that are crisp, fast and clean. What the the app is written in makes little difference to my users. I cannot tell by looking at the desktop what language the app is in (well except for Delphi and dBase OOP - they have those cool images on the command buttons and some objects have "border" properties not in VFP).
>
>Will you take the challenge?