If you search the Fox wiki site for runtime, you'll find info for earlier 
versions. (Don't know how I managed to miss the version in the subject...)

If you plan on running in Vista/W7, I'd recommend going right to 9 assuming you 
can find a copy. IIRC, a full license runs in the 5-600 vicinity and upgrades 
were around 1/2 that. Or if you had the right MSDN subscription at the time 9 
was released, you should find it there.

--
rk

-----Original Message-----
From: profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com] On 
Behalf Of GaryT
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 12:35 PM
To: profoxt...@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Runtime Filename VFP5.0a

> Subject: Runtime Filename VFP5.0a

Thanks Richard,
That site contains information on VFP7, 8 and 9.  Mine is VFP5a.
But, that raised another big question.  Is it worth upgrading?
I was using VFP6 at work in 1998-9 and I don't recall any major differences or 
improvements. If there were any they must have been quite subtle and that 
raised the question of what could MS do to make version
7 or 8 or 9 a lot better?  My memory suggests that after David Fulton retired 
they lost interest in even pretending to want to maintain VFP.

Or, to start from the beginning, is Version 7, 8 or 9 still on the shelves? If 
yes, what is the current price?  I did some Googling and found so much VFP 
material - it was staggering. But, found no prices yet; lots more Googling to 
follow in the next little while.


_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/DF1EEF11E586A64FB54A97F22A8BD04419F2CA5568@ACKBWDDQH1.artfact.local
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to