Ok, so I'm answering my own question, I thought I'd let anyone reading this now what happened and possibly explain it to me since I don't know why what worked did work.

I went into the properties of my two fields in the Detail band and changed their "print when" properties of "print repeated values" from yes to no. This brought out all the rest of my records instead of just repeating my record 1 values N numbers of times. Not sure why this would do this since there was only one value like the one in record 1, but it did. Who am I to question it??? ;)

Mandy

>Hi all!
>
>I'm trying to create a report for a one to many relation with two tables. It's basically listing what software (the 'many') is used on which pieces of hardware (the 'ones') I've created a view for the data source which includes some of the following fields:
>
>agency_code
>hardware_id
>hardware_vendor
>hardware_model
>software_name
>software_version
>software_type (i.e. dbms, GIS, word processing)
>
>For each hardware_id, there are many software name/version/types. I created a report with groupings on hardware_id then software_type so I could first list the basic info on the hardware (vendor, model...), then for each hwid I could group the software on the type (all GIS together, then word processing, etc.), and finally list the sw name and version in the detail lines.
>
>My view looks fine. All the data is listed in the correct order etc. But when I preview my report, I'm having problems. The particular data set I'm testing has 3 hardware_id's and a total of 44 software records. What I get though is info about hardware "#1", the software_type of the first record in the view, then 2 pages of the software_name & version for only the first record, just repeated over and over. Then the report ends. Looks something like this:
>
>Hardware: 001
>Software type: CASE
>SW Name Version
>test1 123
>test1 123
>test1 123
>test1 123
>(and the same line for 2+ pages)
>
>Any clue what could be causing this? I'm using VFP v5.0a. I created a similar report for my peripherals attached to the hardware without any trouble and used that report as the basis for this one (though it only had one grouping).
>
>help!
>
>Mandy