Fabio is mistaken.

>In Message #971766 Fabio was saying this was really a fix to BINDEVENTS because in VFP 8 it was not behaving properly . . .
>
>>PMFJI, but I would like to hear your response to Jeff's other "Major Bug" regarding BindEvents. That one is a very big deal if true. Not doubting Jeff's assertion, but we don't have a copy of 9 to test yet.
>>
>>>Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>>Have you considered a possibility that the MEMO file is indeed corrupted? VFP9 is more sensitive to a MEMO file corruption. It detects corruption that prior versions do not. You should be able to recover content that can be accessed by VFP8. One way to do this is to open the table in VFP8, COPY TO ... then rename (don't forget to backup original files before).
>>>
>>>BTW, an error is not a crash. Please call things what they are.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Aleksey.
>>>
>>>>Geeeeeeeez..... and this is supposed to be a stable release?
>>>>
>>>>Getting COM Server crashes with bogus "Memo file is missing or is invalid" error messages during a REPLACE in a VFP9 DBC Stored Proc.
>>>>
>>>>This stuff has been working flawlessly in VFP8 for months. There are other problems I don't have time to write about.
>>>>
>>>>What really makes me mad about all of this is that there are new features in VFP9 that we really need. But all this other garbage prevents us from using VFP9 until a service pack is released which may or may not address the issues I have found in JUST A FEW HOURS!!!
>>>>
>>>>I feel like asking for our money back. MERRY XMAS