Hi Alex,

I disagree with you on a number of points. Inline:

>I couldn't agree more with you re vfp/sql. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that the only way MS will even consider devoting more resources to vfp is if it was stripped completely of the ability to interact natively with .dbf files.

If you remove native tables then you dont need VFP at all anymore. It's one of the things that makes VFP unique amongst dev tools. It's one of the very things about VFP that make it "data centric" in the first place (to quote MS themselves in describing VFP).


>Regardless of how many thousands of users enjoy the benefit of apps developed with vfp, MS sees only a fraction of a percentile point in terms of revenue, whereas vb and other applications that use sql server as a back-end represent, for the most part 100% profit (excluding msde, mysql and other server platforms).

Firstly, users who use VFP apps have another reason to buy or stay with Windows. Thats good for MS.

Secondly, many VFP apps do talk to other database backends and therefore there is a benefit to MS for those users who use MS SQL. Thats good for MS.

Thirdly, there have been numerous posts in this forum which clearly show that although VFP is not *the* money spinner for MS it is nonetheless a worthwhile product for MS to continue with for a variety of reasons. This is self evident by the continued release of new versions.

Fourthly, what about all the vb apps that do not use MS SQL? But do use Windows and possibly integrate (like VFP apps) to other MS applications like Office? There is more to this issue than the fact that VFP has native tables.

Lastly, if you remove native tables and force VFP to talk to SQL in order to create more money for MS then you would need to force it to *not* talk to other SQL databases. I think that would upset a lot of developers here.


>Remember, in every aspect of life, one hand washes the other. If we don't become a profit center for MS, it's TOTALLY ABSURD to expect MS to support us with new versions of our favorite platform.

How do you know that VFP is not a profit center? And, even if it isnt, it is clear that MS feel that its still worthwhile to pursue new versions presumably for a whole host of other reasons that we might only guess at.

I dont think anyone "expects MS to support us". Its ridiculous to even suggest it. Surely everyone in this forum knows that MS releases new versions of VFP becuase it suits MS to do so, whether we know all the reasons or not. I cannot imagine that anyone here is under any illusion in this regard.



>Now, since one hand washes the other, it would be great, under the above scenario, that even if vfp could no longer talk to dbf's, opening a table in a sql server database be as easy as "use myTable". That would be the best that could ever happen to MS and to us.

And if that came to pass then this is one more developer that would move away from VFP. Besides all the other reasons I can think of, why would I change my application into a per user licence model for SQL? This most certainly would not be "the best that could ever happen to MS and to us". The idea of this ever happening sends shudders down my spine.


>Have fun!

I will!