>>>And we'll be saying "don't bother with those 50 SQL Server licences - you don't need to spend any more $$$ to run our VFP app".
>>
>>This is actually a good counter-argument to those who are concerned about the continued use of VFP. That, along with the fact that it is mature and stable.
>
>
>I don't think money is the only issue. Most businesses of any size want their data in a real database like SQL Server or Oracle. VFP has many of the same features but I don't think you would find many who consider it as robust or secure. A company's data is among its most important assets. You don't mind spending some money to protect it.
>
>SQL Server databases are also much more scalable that DBFs. When large tables are involved that makes the decision right there.

But there are hundreds of thousands of businesses out ther that will never need to "scale" - even if they expand beyond their wildest dreams.
I was part of a PFD application at a telephone company that had 1.4 million custores. Scaling was a problem there, but easily solved by implementing a few small changes. SQL Server does offer many benefits. But it is neither the 'final' answer nor so superior to VFP as to make VFP a hobby system.