On Thursday, October 25, 2007 9:54 AM Michael J. Babcock, MCP wrote: >Was reviewing this thread amongst others in the ProFox archives: >http://leafe.com/archives/showMsg/336400
>David Crooks (or others) -- did you find that VFP9 actually did unearth a problem? Your post indicates a >false positive since it appeared fine with VFP7, but I didn't see a follow up to indicate whether VFP9 >actually identified a problem as it turned out, or not. >I agree with Richard Kaye's comments that basically said "don't you want to be alerted to a problem sooner >rather than later?" (Sorry RK if I paraphrased that wrong.) I do not think an issue was discovered in VFP9, but we do fairly regular maintenance on the tables that it might have corrected the 'hidden' in VFP7 issues. YMMV... David L. Crooks _______________________________________________ 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.
