>>A comment from a prominent IT guy in the UK - don't use VFP use SQL
>>
>>Any comments?
>
>
>Tell that "prominent IT guy" that VFP can use a subset of SQL. He (and you) should know better. SQL is a language. VFP speaks a dialect of it, just as SQL Server and other product do.
>
>If he meant SQL Server, which he probably did but did not know how to express hnimself, he should have said: SQL Server vs VFP tables (dbf). VFP, as you well know, is also a language. There is no technical reason to stop you from using SQL Server as a back-end database to a VFP appo. In fact many of us do just that. Some of the reasons, as you saw in this thread are security and scalability.
>
>Size of tables in VFP (dbf) is limited to 2GB per file.
>Security is minimal to non-existant
>You cannot really backup live (open tables)
>
>SQL Server is a more robust, secure and scalable solution. It works just fine with VFP, especially in VFP 8 and VFP 9.

Sorry SQL Server was implied (by me) but not stated by him in his comments (curious)

Does SQL Server work OK with VFP6 or do I need to upgrade? if so - how would you assess the upgrade problems?

Thanks

Colin