>Agreed. This is why .NET developers tend to develop apps in a different manner than Fox developers. A good developer always codes to the strengths of their chosen platforms.
>
>A few comments though -
>
> 1. We've made good strides with the scalability of ADO.NET datasets in VS2005. Not there yet, but you'll see the start of it (thousands of local rows will work fine now).
> 2. Memory/disk spanning is one of the top things on my personal list for ADO.NET.
>
>Also - I personally appreciate you calling this memory/disk spanning. Cursor is way too overloaded a term. For old time Fox developers like me, you may remember when the SQL folks kept saying "but that's not really a cursor" about Fox (they did use that name first). I find it funny to see folks saying essentially the same thing about .NET not calling it a cursor. <g>
>
>yag

I guess you're not a maketing guy <g>

If you want to sell you stuff making others think that many things changed you have to change the acronyms and/or the technological terms. Then those getting into those new versions will realize that not much changed but it'll be too late because they bought it. So instead of looking like goof balls they'll try to convince others that things changed a lot <vbg>

And the wheels are turning...