>>VFP is a weak solution for WAN's. Companies want ENTERPRISE level data more and more, not LAN departmental data. Also, in major corporations, security and data integrity are of the up-most importance. When a client workstation power failure could possibly corrupt an index during production, i.e. Fox, you have a problem. And if a server fails, will Fox pick up AUTOMATICALLY with a transaction as SQL Server will on a reboot? Not from what I have read...
>>
>>Even small to medium sized companies can not afford to have the best system in place to protect their data. In the long run, SQL Server will provide all the database needs of MS products. If it's Gates vision, then you, as a small part of MS overall customer base, have no choice...
>
>Your points about VFP indexes is well made, Jack, but there is a LOT of programming that doesn't involve companies that need Enterprise-level networks. We're doing one where files are updated by modem and remote users use PC-Anywhere. Not fast, but they've found it reliable. Many of my other clients are based at a single site. WinNT network and DBFs work perfectly for them.
>
>And finally, we run up against the cost/benefits problem that was discussed in a thread earlier this week. Not everyone can afford SQL-Server, and a large percentage of the world doesn't have cheap hardware available.

I would agree that SQL Server is also expensive when you consider the administrative costs. However, you have to admit that recent developments from MS would suggest that the company is making a concerted effort to reduce those costs and complexities...