Charles,

I've used SQL Server and Oracle exclusively for customer data since 1995- that's 12 years, and precedes any of the current claims of prophesy on this point. ;-)

Even so, I still think dbfs have a future.

My point is that technical pro and con arguments aren't relevant to a huge chunk of fee-paying, decision-making market. Cost, ease and survival of expensive hardware kit are the arguments that convince in that market.

For this reason I happily suspend judgment and accept that the dbf and/or local file storage and/or pseudo C/S databases like SQL Anywhere are going to be around for a long time to come.

That's it.

You mentioned elsewhere that you regret that any realistic assessment of Microsoft corporate strategy puts one in peril of being branded a heretic. Perhaps the *real* problem is that those who have reached the same conclusions as the above, apparently including the big database vendors who are bringing out free "lite" databases to serve this market, are not backward, are not guilty of failing to follow trends, are well aware of MS's corporate strategy, and do not need to be saved from themselves. Many of them are well aware of the advantages of SQL Server or Oracle, but are also close to their customers and realize that these sorts of customers won't queue up to pay $10,000 for servers and licenses if the competition's equivalent product works on existing kit.

I'm sure you or I could generate an annoyed reaction if we began broadcasting "current MS strategy" as if nobody else has noticed, and implied fault in those who don't cleave to it. ;-)

I can tell you something for sure: there are *still* FP2.x millionaires out there making >$200,000 per year on old FP apps for which they have to do practically nothing. I challenge anybody to tell me what they're doing wrong- except possibly having too many gins on the veranda in the evening or creating a carbon footprint by popping down to Florida at the drop of a hat. ;-)