what -I- consider a bug in *cabe

[John Esak]

> Don't suppose there's a way to set the default directory for save/load
> to something other than the current file and have it "stick" [...]

No, too bad, a very good idea.  I am that lazy, too. Also, while we are at
it... and I have asked for this in many wish list incarnations through the
past... a tiny macro ability for cabe would be great. It would be so nice to
hit a macro key and then a name? or character, and have the whole current
table saved to a file called "this_tablename.cpy" Or even as a first pass at
the idea of macros, which might not be overly useful... a timed backup of
the table to "this_tablename.bak" a la vim or any of the dozens of other
programs out there that do this kind of thing.  I can't count how many times
this would have saved me from doing stupid things like hitting BREAK/BREAK
when I meant to hit BACKSPACE/BACKSPACE or something equally as dumb at 4am
in the morning... :-(  :-) [I can't imagine how horrible it would be for me
to work in Windows where a *single* wrong key can actually lose 4 hours of
work... or even 5 minutes worth! As fast as you and I (and many others)
type, this can be an awful lot grief.]

There are so many improvements that would be nice in the various FP
programs, and that is why the first improvement of a visible wish list
itself, and projected "do" date or "do_version" would be so helpful. It
would just let us all know two things... first, the wish suggested has
actually been seen by someone at FP Tech.... Second, the suggestion has been
vetted, and prioritized in some way and does or does not have a chance of
becoming reality.

I thought I was beyond making the suggestion to whatever powers that be at
FP Tech .... but I guess not. :-) It being that this extremely simple,
completely cost-free mechanism would serve not only its hugely valuable
purpose for the user community, but an even bigger, more valuable purpose to
FP Tech themselves... in that someone on the cusp of deciding to move away
from filePro to other things... might just see on this wish list a future
enhancement coming up in some future release of filePro... no matter *how*
far away it might be projected for implementation,  and thereby adjust their
decisions more positively toward staying with filePro... and even maybe
deciding to upgrade to get ready for such enhancements.

Of course, when a feature is desired over a long period of time, say the
ability to work with sockets... and one waits and waits for it... then it
finally comes out, but its minimum cost of $1,000 is *more* than the cost of
the entire product itself.... my theory above falls apart pretty quickly.

There was a time when all new functions and features were automatically put
into the latest version of filePro, and this was a major factor in its early
development and fast spread to new users. Now, with functionality like for
examples, sockets, or minimal ODBC interaction, being held out as some sort
of *special* features, and costing wildly ridiculous prices, it makes my
above theory and even the idea of any kind of wish list itself essentially
useless anymore..

Don't get me wrong... FP Tech certainly has the right and should have the
good sense to release special features for filePro... and they certainly
have the right to price them at anything they want.... but, I think it is
also incumbent upon them to know the difference between *common*
database/application-development tools and features that are found in *any*
similar products... like sockets and ODBC..... and truly special features
like Biometrics which are certainly add-ons and should be priced
accordingly. Knowing this difference would allow them to throw every
possible functionality they could into the core filePro giving it at least a
fighting chance to stand up against the FoxPro's, FileMakerPro's and etc.,
out there, otherwise how in the world will our beloved product and developed
packages ever compete?

Currently, one can purchase a FoxPro for less than the price of filePro. And
yes, the FoxPro has thousands more features and much more viability than
filePro... it also allows you to create an executable of your written
application (multi-user!) and distribute as many copies of it as you like
for free!!  It does this all without making you buy *anything* extra to get
the job done. When one looks in the latest version of FoxPro, he finds the
same *stolen* report format screen that it had back in the 80's... yes
*stolen* from filePro's own dmoedef. They call it a "banded report
formatter". :-)  Euphemism for we took this directly from the thing we saw
in the Tandy product so we have to call it something else...   Yes, it is
vastly improved compared to filePro's current report designer... but it
still looks SO similar I get the same heartsick  I got back when I was
working for Small Computer Company and saw they had taken our design almost
lock, stock and barrel for their own product. Things were fast and loose
back then in the early days of PC computing... and lawsuits for "look and
feel" were expensive.

I bring all this painful stuff up again now for only one reason... there is
something to be learned from the situation. Why did FoxPro grow and
prosper... and filePro did not?  One of the major reasons I believe is that
they put all their power into the one product and did not try and sell it in
dribs and drabs. filePro has always been held hostage by those who tried
doing it the "other" way. Let's have a Plus version... let's have a
QuickStart version, let's have a "Runtime" version... let's have a version
that does ODBC, and one that does sockets... and etc., etc. It's my feeling
that with the products filePro is fighting against out there today, it needs
to put everything it has going for it into one package and make that
available at the highest price the market will bear. There is no benefit to
holding back weapons in your arsenal until you have lost the battle and
eventually the war.

John