>>[Snip...]
>>Expensive and cheap are not absolute terms and they depend on the situation. For a major corporation, spending 65K in site licenses for NT and SQL Server (I am using your numbers here) may be cheap at the price when compared to what they are getting. On the other hand, to other businesses, 3,000 for a machine is too much.
>>
>>It depends.
>
>I don't disagree with that logic, my disagreement comes into focus when were are speaking of a system where you would logically specify VFP as the database. If you get acceptable performance with 100 users on a system running VFP at a fixed cost versus 10,000 for the licenses for SQL server, I'd say SQL Server was too expensive. Otherwise, I agree with your assertion.
>
>John Harvey

John,

Then we have no disagreement. The only purpose in not using VFP is because, for one reason or another, it cannot do the job. The question for MS is, what percentage of jobs require a different back end solely because of security concerns that can logically be taken care of in VFP?