>>Why the need to acquire SQL Server if it is not necessary? What we badly >needed is that MS should put a Password to open a Database/tables to avoid >hackers to hack the data. It's all, but marketing strategy!!! Grrrrr.....
>
>
>There are lots of ways around the problem. Products like Cryptor work pretty well when it comes to encrypting tables. The bottom line is that the DBF file structure is not strategic - at least as far as MS is concerned. I am with Jim on this in that making DBF's secure is not of interest to me. That is one of the things I like about DBF's - no BS and no overhead. When I do need security, I use SQL/Server. Don't forget a desktop version of SQL/Server is coming out with version 7.0.
>
>I will be at TechEd and will provide reports on the goings on in New Orleans.

Again, it's an illogical concern. Sorry for the word. We need native VFP data without resorting C/S technology because of speed matters ( No third party tools, only VFP). It's very clear, M$ is not putting that feature in VFP DBC/Tables to force the client to resort to SQL Server. What about that slogan on VFP world: In VFP, it's one stop shopping! Is it still applicable? No more, no more...