Hi Jim....
>
>Anything but modest applications??? You earlier dismissed the Eurotunnel. Ive written of a single system running the company - 250-350 workstations across 2 cities and billing approx. 1 million customers per month.
>Sure, both were FPD/FPW, but that's not the point, it is the effectiveness of the DBF that's at question here.
>

I did not dismiss it out of hand. OK, when I have an isolated application I will generally use VFP by itself...unless the tables are going to exceed 1GB or so...but NOT in the client/server environment and that is the point. I am not saying that you can't have a very large monolithic app like Eurotunnel in pure VFP...all power to you...it's just that to work and play well with others large-scale you should consider a different database backend.

You have to look at the application in the context of the enterprise.....

>Craig is going to implement something to replace the DBF using MTS, MSMS, ADO, SQL Server, VFP and LMNOP. Now THAT ought to be real fun, getting all that to work together and PROPERLY across several hundred workstations! Using stuff in its infancy, which isn't yet working properly, and is hardly documented. We call that progress???
>
>I agree it will be lots of fun, but progress???
>

I'd like to see Craig publish a write-up of what he is planning and a follow-up once it's been done as a case study...would be enlightening.