On Nov 29, 2007 10:37 AM, MB Software Solutions < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Arnold wrote: > > <snipped> > > But I've also watched lawsuits against MS, and despite all the ups and > > downs, it did convince me that MS had no compunction using predatory > > practices. Now, from the vantage point of history, it seems very clear > > to me that the 'grand design' for acquiring FoxPro was not beneficial to > > us, as MS advertised it to be, but was instead a time bomb the company > > was placing into the guts of the enterprises who bought into the product > > development system that VFP is. > > > > I thought the point was to acquire Rushmore technology. At the time, as > I heard told (which obviously could be wrong), Fox was superior in speed > to SQL Server and certainly Access, and thus their desire to acquire > that technology into their (slower) databases. > > I still don't remember seeing anything in respect to rushmore in SQL server. The index of SQL Server is drastically different. Back in those days you couldn't tell the sever which index to use. I still think it was to have an xBase product. Period. MAybe some of that rushmore went into the jet engine? I don't know. I think that they were just buying a large niche at the time. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ 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.
