>>Hmmm... some sort of magician? There was never a VFP 5 DOS. Perhaps you mean 2.5?

OK, OK... it was FP 2.6 Windows on DOS. Its been so long ago that I just keyed in VFP 5 from force of habit.

>>Ummm... I hate to tell you this, but that was due mostly to applcation design and bad user habits. I had more problems with 2.x indeces than I've ever had with VFP...

Bad user habits I'll go along with (I couldn't get away from that client fast enough) and I'll even add poor hardware, but the app design was typical for the day. I recall a Fox "expert" from the time stating that corrupted indexes were inevitable because of the DOS OS.

>>SQL Server may very well be a better solution, but without more details of your need, I can't say one way or the other. Many people are using VFP for web apps without problems.

As I said, I was considering counseling the client to use VFP as the business tier, but use a SQL Server DBMS.


To all who responded, thanks for your feedback. Current practices, software and hardware are much superior to what was available 10 years ago and that's why I was willing to expose myself to this abuse :-0
I needed to determine if the current VFP was a legitimate transaction DBMS. It appears to be.

Regards,
Thom C.