>>>>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.


I certainly did not call VFP a hobby system. I was speaking specifically of DBFs compared to databases such as SQL Server, and even there I didn't say DBFs are only for "hobbyists." For smaller companies they can be adequate. Others consider them less than adequate.