John,

I don't doubt your experience for a second, but I've gotta go with it being reasonable in a SMALL environment.
I would hate to see anyone cut off one avenue of exploitation for VFP just because of some ill-considered statement.

Cheers (yes, I'll be there soon)

Jim N

>Hiya Jim --
>
>(See you at conference today?) Anyway.....
>
>>That seems an odd statement, Mark.
>>
>>I wonder why MS gave Win95 that ability to do it if it "wasn't really meqnt to be used as an application server"???
>>And would that still be your opinion if the person trying to do so said that they *DID* run nothing else of consequence on the machine acting as "server"?
>>
>
>A reply to your post from someone else shared my sentiments...Win95 peer-to-peer is more designed for workgroup type stuff. Common documents and other single, contiguous file-sharing. A database/table is one physical file being shared by multiple people who are writing *portions* of the file.
>
>I have run into monster problems with buffered tables on a peer-to-peer Win95 LAN. Problems I don't run into with WinNT, Novell, et al.
>
>So...it's not a question of questioning what Win95 was designed to do...it's a situation where there *is* a problem and that you have to workaround.
>
>I think there is a KB article on this topic...I'll try to find it and post a followup