Hi all:
I have been supporting, for ten years or so, a VFP6 application that I
developed for a company. They are looking to upgrade their machines to Win7
and have been having trouble getting the VFP6 application to install. I
have not yet had a chance to test this out on my own, but I suspect that the
issue could quickly be resolved by using the Win XPmode procedure discussed
elsewhere.
Before I knew about that option, I suggested to them that upgrading to
VFP9 might be the way to go to resolve these issues. However, that was a
mistake, as they discovered that -- gasp! -- Microsoft has discontinued
development of VFP.
So, NOW they're asking me if I would recommend that they stay with VFP
or if they should move to something else that will be supported in the
future.
Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is solid
and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
into the development language.
But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the world
comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
various thoughts on this topic.
Thanks in advance!
Jon
_______________________________________________
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/F5F49CFEB6BF4BC69FBBAB127C537EB5@Megabox
** 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.
I would explain them all the story then propose them to do it in two
steps: first convert the application to VFP9, to make it work on
Windows 7, and thus getting 3-4 more years at least, and after
conversion start rewriting in something else.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Jon Westcot <jon@westcot.net> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have been supporting, for ten years or so, a VFP6 application that I
> developed for a company. They are looking to upgrade their machines to Win7
> and have been having trouble getting the VFP6 application to install. I
> have not yet had a chance to test this out on my own, but I suspect that the
> issue could quickly be resolved by using the Win XPmode procedure discussed
> elsewhere.
>
> Before I knew about that option, I suggested to them that upgrading to
> VFP9 might be the way to go to resolve these issues. However, that was a
> mistake, as they discovered that -- gasp! -- Microsoft has discontinued
> development of VFP.
>
> So, NOW they're asking me if I would recommend that they stay with VFP
> or if they should move to something else that will be supported in the
> future.
>
> Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
> begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
> combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is solid
> and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
> could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
> much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
> application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
> into the development language.
>
> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>
> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
> that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the world
> comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
> various thoughts on this topic.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Jon
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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/BANLkTikKyvpsphdiOtRA+-mT6AF+wGdUtQ@mail.gmail.com
** 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.
What would the something else provide that VF9 would not?
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Grigore Dolghin
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 4:42 PM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Questions from a client regarding VFP9
I would explain them all the story then propose them to do it in two
steps: first convert the application to VFP9, to make it work on
Windows 7, and thus getting 3-4 more years at least, and after
conversion start rewriting in something else.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Jon Westcot <jon@westcot.net> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have been supporting, for ten years or so, a VFP6 application that I
> developed for a company. They are looking to upgrade their machines to
Win7
> and have been having trouble getting the VFP6 application to install. I
> have not yet had a chance to test this out on my own, but I suspect that
the
> issue could quickly be resolved by using the Win XPmode procedure
discussed
> elsewhere.
>
> Before I knew about that option, I suggested to them that upgrading to
> VFP9 might be the way to go to resolve these issues. However, that was a
> mistake, as they discovered that -- gasp! -- Microsoft has discontinued
> development of VFP.
>
> So, NOW they're asking me if I would recommend that they stay with VFP
> or if they should move to something else that will be supported in the
> future.
>
> Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
> begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
> combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is
solid
> and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
> could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
> much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
> application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
> into the development language.
>
> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>
> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
> that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the
world
> comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
> various thoughts on this topic.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Jon
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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/29E139648EBB4447B6BC9BB909AD09CD@jerryfootePC
** 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.
Have you tried to compile the Project in VFP9
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Jerry Foote
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:28 PM
To: 'ProFox Email List'
Subject: RE: Questions from a client regarding VFP9
What would the something else provide that VF9 would not?
Jerry
-----Original Message-----
From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
Of Grigore Dolghin
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 4:42 PM
To: profox@leafe.com
Subject: Re: Questions from a client regarding VFP9
I would explain them all the story then propose them to do it in two
steps: first convert the application to VFP9, to make it work on
Windows 7, and thus getting 3-4 more years at least, and after
conversion start rewriting in something else.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Jon Westcot <jon@westcot.net> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have been supporting, for ten years or so, a VFP6 application that I
> developed for a company. They are looking to upgrade their machines to
Win7
> and have been having trouble getting the VFP6 application to install. I
> have not yet had a chance to test this out on my own, but I suspect that
the
> issue could quickly be resolved by using the Win XPmode procedure
discussed
> elsewhere.
>
> Before I knew about that option, I suggested to them that upgrading to
> VFP9 might be the way to go to resolve these issues. However, that was a
> mistake, as they discovered that -- gasp! -- Microsoft has discontinued
> development of VFP.
>
> So, NOW they're asking me if I would recommend that they stay with VFP
> or if they should move to something else that will be supported in the
> future.
>
> Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
> begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
> combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is
solid
> and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
> could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
> much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
> application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
> into the development language.
>
> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>
> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
> that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the
world
> comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
> various thoughts on this topic.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Jon
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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/74D8809CC891429493327B6165A4FF3D@jerryfootePC
** 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.
Nothing, for the next 3-5 years. But we don't know if VFP will run on
next windows version, or on the version after it. For an impartial
point of view one should consider this as well.
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Jerry Foote <jerryf@footegroup.com> wrote:
> What would the something else provide that VF9 would not?
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: profox-bounces@leafe.com [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf
> Of Grigore Dolghin
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 4:42 PM
> To: profox@leafe.com
> Subject: Re: Questions from a client regarding VFP9
>
> I would explain them all the story then propose them to do it in two
> steps: first convert the application to VFP9, to make it work on
> Windows 7, and thus getting 3-4 more years at least, and after
> conversion start rewriting in something else.
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Jon Westcot <jon@westcot.net> wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>> I have been supporting, for ten years or so, a VFP6 application that I
>> developed for a company. They are looking to upgrade their machines to
> Win7
>> and have been having trouble getting the VFP6 application to install. I
>> have not yet had a chance to test this out on my own, but I suspect that
> the
>> issue could quickly be resolved by using the Win XPmode procedure
> discussed
>> elsewhere.
>>
>> Before I knew about that option, I suggested to them that upgrading to
>> VFP9 might be the way to go to resolve these issues. However, that was a
>> mistake, as they discovered that -- gasp! -- Microsoft has discontinued
>> development of VFP.
>>
>> So, NOW they're asking me if I would recommend that they stay with VFP
>> or if they should move to something else that will be supported in the
>> future.
>>
>> Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
>> begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
>> combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is
> solid
>> and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
>> could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
>> much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
>> application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
>> into the development language.
>>
>> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>>
>> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
>> that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the
> world
>> comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
>> various thoughts on this topic.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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/BANLkTimddNHrYnb9fgkKAADUAsr6FHFWNw@mail.gmail.com
** 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.
Jon Westcot wrote:
> Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
> begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
> combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is solid
> and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
> could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
> much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
> application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
> into the development language.
>
> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>
> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
> that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the world
> comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
> various thoughts on this topic.
>
> Thanks in advance!
Hi Jon,
What would happen if you set up XP in a VM on their machines and run the
app in that while rewriting in "something else"? Would that be easier
than recompiling the app in VFP9?
--
Regards,
Pete
http://elect-pete-theisen.com/
_______________________________________________
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/4DB4B27E.5030000@verizon.net
** 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.
I don't understand the discussion re this question.
Why does the app not run under Win7 and why do you think the problem will be
resolved by "upgarding" to VFP9.
I have VFP6 apps that run fine under Win7
S
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Jon Westcot <jon@westcot.net> wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> I have been supporting, for ten years or so, a VFP6 application that I
> developed for a company. They are looking to upgrade their machines to
> Win7
> and have been having trouble getting the VFP6 application to install. I
> have not yet had a chance to test this out on my own, but I suspect that
> the
> issue could quickly be resolved by using the Win XPmode procedure discussed
> elsewhere.
>
> Before I knew about that option, I suggested to them that upgrading to
> VFP9 might be the way to go to resolve these issues. However, that was a
> mistake, as they discovered that -- gasp! -- Microsoft has discontinued
> development of VFP.
>
> So, NOW they're asking me if I would recommend that they stay with VFP
> or if they should move to something else that will be supported in the
> future.
>
> Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
> begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
> combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is solid
> and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
> could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
> much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
> application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
> into the development language.
>
> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>
> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
> that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the world
> comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
> various thoughts on this topic.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Jon
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
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/BANLkTimZcYgToT48G10=tOu=NGDB23hgMA@mail.gmail.com
** 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.
> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>
> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
>that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the world
>comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
>various thoughts on this topic.
Hm... the proper answer is, "If you stay with Windows, there is no
guarantee that ANYTHING will work 3 to 5 years from now. On the other hand,
if you go with a different operating system....there is still no guarantee
that ANYTHING will work 3-5 years from now."
The thing is, most developers of OSes and programming languages have a
bleeding-edge orientation and they chuckle at people who think that old
stuff should continue to work for any period of time after they--the very
cool bleeding edge people--find a so-called "better" way of doing things.
I'm not trying to be facetious. It is really, absolutely, true that NOTHING
can be relied on for a long period of time in the IT world. Customers need
to understand that. Software has an even shorter life than entertainment media.
They need to build into their projections the expectation that, at the very
outside limit, their software will have to be redone every ten years or so.
And NOBODY can predict, in Year One, what they will need in Year Ten. (Yeah
I know, that is not the MS lifecycle. But it's the maximum lifespan you can
expect from a very-well-maintained, high-quality, desktop computer--upon
whose demise you'll be forced to go with a different OS, and, potentially,
different software.)
So it's not about the platform. It's about the intelligence and
resourcefulness of developers. If you're reliable and resourceful, then
they can rely on you to come up with the replacement they need. If not...
then not.
Ken Dibble
(who is more than usually irritated with the software business tonight)
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
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/5.2.1.1.1.20110424202411.020c55b8@pop3.frontiernet.net
** 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.
>Why does the app not run under Win7 and why do you think the problem will be
>resolved by "upgarding" to VFP9.
>
>I have VFP6 apps that run fine under Win7
Sorry for my earlier outburst. Sytze is, of course, correct.
The most common reasons why an app created when VFP 6 was current won't run
under Win 7 would be:
1. The app writes data to its own "home" folder under C:\Program Files, and
then expects to be able to read that data.
MS, in its infinite wisdom, thinks it's a bad idea to let software write
data within C:\Program Files because it "might be a virus". It didn't occur
to them that malware authors can understand these rules as well as anybody
else and can write data to other locations--and cause executables to be run
from those other locations.
In any case, in this situation, Win 7 (and, I believe, Win Vista) will
"virtualize" the written data to a location inside the user's profile--that
is, they intercept any "write" commands and cause them to be executed
elsewhere. That works great--no error messages occur--but the app doesn't
know this was done and these latest and greatest operating systems are too
stupid to intercept any "read" commands and redirect them to the actual
location where the data was written to. At that point, many errors ensue.
You can turn this off, in Vista and Windows 7, via editing one or more
security policies. Stephen, no doubt, will jump in and say this is stupid
and unsafe. To which I respond, the malware authors are already miles ahead
of this and have long ago re-written their apps to bypass this trivia.
So you can either rewrite your app so it uses the proper Windows %whatever%
locations, or tell users to install your app in the root directory (ie.
C:\My App) or you can tell users how to turn this useless feature off.
2. There could, I think, possibly be some graphical issues in Win 7 with
the full-on "Aero" graphics system running. There were issues in VFP 9 with
this that had to be fixed; I'm not clear on whether they exist with VFP 6.
But users could be asked to use one of the older themes to see if that
clears up the problem. People running business apps shouldn't be expecting
things to be all pretty anyway...
3, Your installation doesn't deposit all of the required dependencies into
the folder where the application resides, and users are trying to run your
application as restricted users. Change your installation app to put all
the dependent files into the application folder (instead of into "\system"
or "\sytem32\").
4. There are issues with both medium-old-style "Windows Help" and CHM help
files in Windows 7; your installation app may need to deal with this.
5. The OS may be a 64 bit version; in this case, some things get installed
in the wrong locations. This can be Googled.
Ken Dibble
www.stic-cil.org
_______________________________________________
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/5.2.1.1.1.20110424204226.020d8b68@pop3.frontiernet.net
** 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.
Install VMWare and emulate Windows any version. The app should be good to
run forever.
> Jon Westcot wrote:
>
>> Now, I could easily (well, not EASILY, but you all know what I mean)
>> begin rewriting this application for something else, such as a VB/SQL
>> combination, but frankly, that's gonna get ugly fast. The VFP app is
>> solid
>> and has been working well for them for a long time. I suspect that they
>> could make the minor investment for me to move the app from VFP6 to VFP9
>> much more easily than they could move to an entirely new look-and-feel
>> application with an entirely new back-end database that's not integrated
>> into the development language.
>>
>> But, is that the PROPER answer to give them?
>>
>> I'd really enjoy hearing comments on all sides of these questions...
>> that is, if you all don't mind chiming in. The best VFP minds in the
>> world
>> comprise this audience, and it would be quite beneficial for me to read
>> various thoughts on this topic.
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>
>
_______________________________________________
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/5352C3A53A934AC390C9F11E5C927CA2@dual
** 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.