Walter, I think that sometimes we loose the focus. Microsoft has developer languages for the purpose of selling Windows and Office, which are their real cash cows. I don't think they do much money with .NET, VFP or any other developing languages; but if they would stopped these lines of products Windows and Office sales would be hurt seriously in the long run.

The corporate world depends on a lot of custom programs that keep their business alive, and sometimes these programs are more important than the spreadsheet. If Linux would have better developer languages and tools whic would produce better and more reliable software in less time, then it would be a far greater threat to Microsoft.

Point two: I think Microsoft sees MS SQL as their next cash cow. Companies depend on data, their software infrastructure is built around data, and these businesses are the most important software customers. I guess this is why Microsoft is realising that .NET has to be data centric, and thi is the future direction. Now everybody has Windows and Office, but MS SQL I think has only about 30% share of database products; there's a lot of field for improvement for MS. Besides, MS is building data in the core of Longhorn (even the File System will be written around some SQL-what-ever data engine), so we should expect MS SQL to work faster/better in Windows machines than competing products (if MS SQL is integrated into the operating system, much the same way Internet Explorer is).

In this scenario, it is not that important whether VFP or .NET are a nice products, but their ability to tie people to MS Windows, Office and SQL. And in this field, VFP is a killer. MS can use VFP to sell more SQL licences than we think. I think this is one of the reasons the VFP team should not improve the VFP native database engine too much, or at least in it's limits. The 2GB limit should never be raised, native encryption and security should never be implemented, ... This way developers will be pushed to use MS SQL.

VFP needs a native data engine for small (and not so small) solutions, and because a lot of data manipulation is made on local cursors even if this cursors come from a remote query against a SQL engine (and this is where VFP shines). But I think that more and more VFP will be a great seller of SQL licences, and this is where the real money is.
So I don't see any good reason to kill VFP, or to change the product internal policies. Microsoft has been developing the product at a constant pace, and I don't think they won't do so in the future. VFP does not hurt .NET, it does not consume a lot of resources for Microsoft standars, and it can help a little bit to turn SQL in the next cash cow.

For us, VFP developers the question might be to stand by our dear FOX or chage to .NET (I agree you on this point). For MS is not important as long as you help to sell Windows, Office and SQL with your solutions. And we, VFP developers, help to do it. A lot more than we think.

>Hi kevin,
>
>>2) Generally though, I agree with your observations regarding Fox and Microsoft. I think the number of downward trends regarding FoxPro exceed the upward trends. VFP is a great tool that can do many things. But .NET is also a great tool that can do more things than some realize (or want to realize).
>>
>>MS has openly stated that .NET is their strategic development tool - and yet those who talk about the features of .NET and cite first-hand market examples reflecting this are the ones accused of spreading FUD.
>
>In case, you're refering to my post, all I want to say here is that people who are moving to the .NET platform because they FEAR the future of VFP and are UNCERTAIN they are going to make a living out of their VFP knowledge and DOUBT that the majority of VFP developers can, have made up their mind and made a personal decision. However, people spreading this thought are indeed spreading FUD (FEAR UNCERTAINTY DOUBT).
>
>This behaviour is more damaging to VFP than anything else if you'd ask me. In contrast with Clipper there are virtually no technical reasons to justify the FUD. The VFP team releases new versions about every 18 months or so and they are regarded rather stable. Therefore I cannot see the parrallel people are trying to draw here between Clipper and VFP.
>
>The thing about FUD is that people are afraid of their finance when sticking with VFP, and think .NET is the solution. Personally I think that .NET is too immature yet to be a safe investment. AVALON, YUKON and LONGHORN will crash this thought.
>
>It is funny all those people speaking so highly about .NET don't seem to mention those three new technologies in their rants. Why ? Dont' they know? If they claim to look at the future, why can't you look at the future of .NET ? If you really do then you easily could see that this version of .NET actually might be an intermediate step and you'll want to rewrite your applications from scratch again within a few years.
>
>So please tell me what advantages would it have to switch to .NET right now? Technical ? Code investment? Learning a leading language? I don't think so. I'd rather think it is marketing, yes ... microsofts marketing. As a result companies are more focusing on .NET. And if you're a contracter, .NET is an opportunity of finding work that you've lost with VFP. However, if as a company you've got significant experience in building VFP applications and can make a living out of it, I can only say: Think before you switch... Too many VFP shops have burned their fingers in the past on new development tools (Access, Java, VB).
>
>Walter,