Well, I wouldn't of thunk to look for a definition of JET there, but I guess the site has about everything these days. Thanks.

>>Is the Access DB engine the same as JET? I think it is, but I just don't keep up with that too much. And we know MS used Rushmore in later versions of JET, correct? The reason I ask is that EWeek reports that Exchange's data store is based on the Extensible Storage Engine, which is a derivative of JET. MS was discussing moving the data store to SQL Server, but "subsequent improvements to JET's stability, performance, and recoverablility have made the matter less urgent." So can we presume that due to Rushmore (for the performance portion of the previous quote), MS has found JET to be capable of handling enterprise level apps? And can we further say that this reflects directly and positively on VFP? Can we say that despite the tepid support given VFP by MS in its efforts to sell more expensive development platforms, VFP is indeed a powerful platform that deserves more credit than given? Just some thoughts/questions that came to mind as I read the article.
>>
>>The EWeek article ("Data store still in works") is on pg. 27 of the 7/31 issue, which only got to me today. It's probably online, too.
>
>According to Wikipedia, Access Jet ("Jet Red") and ESE ("Jet Blue") "shared no ISAM code whatsoever".
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Storage_Engine