Will everyone on this site please agree on a posting format, either chronological or reverse chronological? LOL I will follow in line with the way you have posted, with the most recent post first ....

You hit the nail on the head that whatever Microsoft starts, others imitate. Something that was said about IBM in the 1970s is equally true of Microsoft today: "They're not the competition, they're the environment."

Mainframe-era trivia: IBM's so-called competitors back then were sometimes referred to as "the bunch." BUNCH was an acronym for Burroughs, Univac, NCR, Control Data, and Honeywell.

I mention only in passing that all of them are either gone or bit players in the computer business today.

Mike


>Yea! I like to see this point made. I get so tired of date-related versions (especially when the internal version is still just n.nn). And, of course, as soon as MS started it everyone had to follow along like little puppies and do the same thing with their products. The same goes for service packs - everybody started doing that, too, just to imitate MS and sound more "professional". I don't even like the x.y.z formats. I'd just like to see a simple n.nn format for everything. VFP 7, VFP 7.01, VFP 8, VFP 8.01, etc. (you can decide if it's .01 or .1 depending if it's a fairly significant update or just a real minor thing). All this other stuff is just marketing BS . . .
>
>>Personally, I dislike any date-related naming scheme. This mainly dates back to my days as a Clipper developer. The version was named "Summer '87", but you had to make sure you were using the 2:00 AM version. You could only do this by checking the date/time stamp on the compiler. It's much easier to just have version 9, 9.1, etc.
>>
>>>
>>>Even better, VFP 2005 then...