Hi Jack ---

Until the new VS6 Data Environment, it was certainly easier in most cases to manage remote views in VFP than it was to manage data in VB.

As long as VFP is part of VS and continues to be upgraded and supported by MS within the VS framework, which is better or worse is moot.


>I know all about the Fox technology found in VB, but have you stopped to consider what MS has implemented into VFP? It's a two way street...
>
>Access had a workable database container with default values, picture masks, R/I, and triggers long before VFP 3.0 was released. The VFP 5.0 debugger is based upon VC++ 5.0's.
>
>So, you consider VFP better at SQL back-ends than the other MS tools. I guess the rest of the world is misled... Even if you're right and without bias, the best technology does not always win, i.e. Apple's Mac, Sony's BETA, etc. Funny thing is, unlike these other technologies, Fox is cheaper than its competitors.
>
>
>>I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about "more direct links to SQL Server that VB and VC++ offer". I use both VB & VFP to connect to SQL Server and Oracle. VFP gives you MUCH more control over the connection than VB. The performance and reliability in VFP is also MUCH better. VFP easily handles larger result sets, whereas VB continually crashes with "Automation" errors when using large result sets.
>>
>>And as far as MS using Fox technology, ADO is based on the VFP engine. MS is pushing ADO as totally replacing the VB DAO that is based on the Jet engine.