>>I have to tell you...my company did...but they didn't know what they were
>getting. I'm currently writing up a proposal to replace the DBFs we have.
>The solution will include MTS, MSMS, ADO, SQL Server, VFP...and oh
>yes...LMNOP. <g>.
>>The fact is, DBFs have a place...but are not the solution for all. (sorry
>Jim). Our datasets are just too big and security is too big an issue. I
>don't want to hear about the Chunnel. I know all about that...but truth is,
>it will be easier to do things with SQL Server than trying to manage
>umpteen datasets.
>
>Just one note. Have users ready for slow performance.
>I totally agree that DBF's aren't the answer to everything.
>The only thing is that never mind us as developers,
>users complain once they go from FP/VFP to other environments,
>they say "I'm always waiting". The enduser doesn't know
>VFP from SQL Server, AS400, Oracle, etc. but they do
>know MUCH slower perfermance.


There are many things that can be done about SQL Server perfomance...most of them are simple tuning issues.