OK. Whether or not replication is used, having your data in SQL Server makes it more easily consumed over the internet, so think about that.

I've got 2 clients that I have set up using 2-way replication between a main SQL 2005 server and multiple remote sites. It was not easy to get up and running reliably (at least until SQL 2005 SP2), but it is working reliably now. The desktop clients for both applications are VFP9 and all reports are via SSRS. It is not an impossible task.

>William,
>
>SQL Server is not an option at this point in time. And, I've heard only horror stories about replication not working in the current version of that product. In fact, I just left a position at a company that could not get replication to work with a highly talented SQL Server guru on staff!
>
>Regardless, I appreciate the input and the concept is good, but will not work or can not work for us, depending on how you look at it.
>
>Thanks again!
>
>
>>If you are looking to replace the system, consider putting your data into SQL Server and use database subscriptions to replicate data at field offices. Field offices could function regardless of current internet connection status. Depending on database size, Field offices could use SQL 2005 Express on their end to keep costs minimal.
>>
>>Another SQL server option would be to make the central SQL server available over the internet directly although this would mean clients would not be functional when a connection was down.
>>
>>Either way you gain reliability and scalability.
>>