Michael,

> > The problem being that without provision for ongoing maintenance,
our 
> > air supply is cut off.
> >   
> 
> That is correct...the jig is up...time to acknowledge the 
> writing on the wall that many others have said has been there for
years.  
> The official death knell hath sounded!  Does this mean I'm stopping
development of 
> VFP apps?  No, not at all.  But I certainly will be expanding 
> my toolset to other offerings, including those not offered by M$.


My point here is that MS owes us more than a slammed door. 

I'm also using other tools, but the application I'm selling is written
in VFP and I have no plans whatsoever to re-write it again. This is my
4th - and last - complete re-write. 

I am aware that VM is a way to handle this problem, but I'm speaking as
I am because I believe that MS screwed us over, and we shouldn't be just
bending over. 
 
> Example: I'm not putting SP2 on because I've seen reports of failures 
> > with it. It's a small matter today, but it is enough of an example
of 
> > the rubber meeting the road. Will there be an SP3? There's no
question 
> > that we need it, yet MS appears to be saying no. We can't accept
that.
> >   
> 
> SP2, despite John Koziol's post saying SP2 "is fine to run with" 
> (http://gonzmax.blogspot.com/2007/10/vfp9-sp2.html), sounds like a bad

> move, imo.


SP2 today isn't a really big deal, but the underlying matter - that
needed maintenance isn't being scheduled - is. 


Bill

 
 
> -- 
> Michael J. Babcock, MCP



_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** 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