My impression was that VFP 6.0 includes some tools for fixing problems with Y2K compliance in applications written in previous versions. Hard to tell what they were talking about though. The article was probably a MS press release edited by the author. Between MS's PR firm and the author (I'm guessing neither of them actually knows anything about VFP), it's not surprising that things got a bit mangled.

Anyway, I'm glad he's looking into it. Hopefully it will be clarified.

>>There's an article on CNET NEWS today mentioning the upcoming release of Visual FoxPro 6.0. It's always nice to see Visual FoxPro mentioned in the press, especially in a prominent place like CNET, but... this particular article seems to imply that all versions of FoxPro prior to 6.0 have a Year 2000 problem with date fields, and talks about a new "four digit year" format for date fields in VFP 6.0. I'm not a 6.0 beta tester and don't know about this (couldn't talk about it if I were, could I?) but I can just imagine the concerns this is going to generate among our clients and others using older VFP/FPW/FPD applications and who may now think everything's got to move to VFP 6.0 before 12/31/1999.
>>
>>Read the Visual FoxPro 6.0 on the way article on CNET. If you think a clarification is in order, as I did, you may want to email the writer, as I also did, and push for a follow-up article to clear things up.
>
>I just heard back from Mike Riciutti at CNET, who indicated that his source was Microsoft and that he has contacted them for a clarification. We don't need to inundate him with e-mail, he's already following up on it.
>
>The URL for the article is
>http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,22134,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh