Terry, what came to my mind when reading your answers below: HUH? HUH? HUH? HUH? HUH?

>Visual appealing is not one of VFP strengths. Never has been. Functionality wise - it's not the tool that determines the feature set.
>
>I disagree - VFP apps can be sexy!
>
>Your west-wind "utility" consoles are sexy!
>
>Now this may upset many of us - but apps that rely on DBCs (instead of DBF) or SELECT instead of SEEK, and apps that rely on "binding" fields to controls rather than hard assigning the "value" cannot be sexy. APPs that use TABLEUPDATE are not sexy. Those are sluggish engines, and developers that use those are working inside a very narrow part of the VFP paradigm. They are limiting their deliverables to the stereotypical "one table - one (modal) form" paradigm that almost destroyed our market.
>
>Apps with pages of grids are definetly not sexy!
>
>That may account for why so many VFP apps look the same and why so many prospective users complain or avoid a VFP projects. And that may be why some of us are looking for an out with .NET. If we write less than ambitious apps with VFP - then we will write less than ambitious apps with any platform we move to.
>
>Sexy is minimal. Sexy is precise. Sexy is pretty. Sexy is fast.
>
>If you check out that "cheap" little RIO demo I get beat up about - and you expand the nodes on the treeview, and you click the hot navigator and move the cursor up and down the tree. The data flies to the controls. You can't do that with DBC or SELECT or TABLEUPDATE or Grid based apps.
>
>Granted - order entry or billing may not always need "brisk" data previews, but there are situations, like 'expert' systems or finacial/risk systems or large serialized inventory control systems - where features like that are very helpful.
>
>I disagree - VFP - providing our spirit is pure:) - is a great tool to develop sensual, high end apps.
>
>How do we get to Carnigie hall?:)