>>[Snip...]
>>
>>
>>As for the economic concerns, I don't see the huge deal. The additional cost for SQL Server is not that huge, even if you have to throw a brand new NT Server on the network. Furthermore, if they're dead set against going C/S, we have options for security. For example, back in the old DOS days, there was a product called SiteLock that provided dynamite security on Novell Networks (conditional access rights to directories... you could only access the directory from within a specific .EXE. While I do not know if something like this exists currently for the windows environment, it would be worth a check. In addition, we always have the option of encryption.
>>
>>So, would it be nice if MS gave us full featured security in VFP? Sure. Is it going to give me funcitonality that I cannot get now through other means? Yeah, but only a small percentage of the time. I can understand MS saying that there is bigger bang for their development buck elsewhere.
>>
>>[Snip...]
>>
>>
>I have to disagree with your statement that SQL server isn't a significant investment. It's the reason MS pushed Access over VFP! You hit the wall so quick with Access that when you start screaming, they say well you've outgrown that product, but you can move directly into SQL server i.e. NT server, software and hardware, SQL Server software, plus they'll try to put you into Back Office. The real kicker comes next, $600 for NT Server, another $400 for SQL Server and then they pull your pants down around your ankles and start yelling for a crowd, licenses for each of the servers. If a company has 100 users, they will pay the base costs, plus roughly $30 per NT client and $100 per SQL server client. Still say that's insignificant? Suppose the company has 500 to 1000 workstations? Of course, as a small time investor in MS, I want them to make money, but whoa what a cash cow?
>
>John Harvey


And those prices are for normal SQL Server. If you go to SQL Server and NT Enterprise....hold on to your wallet!