>>I saved these for the end. On my PC (P-150 64 MB) the VB 5 code took 17.18 seconds.
>
>I agree that using VFP6 would be faster than VFP5, but I was actually more interested in your time for VB. The code ran 15 seconds faster on my machine. Do you think that the difference in MHZ (400 to 150) would make that much difference?

I guess it's time for me to get a faster machine. I suppose if those are the results you got they must be accurate. You should see an equivalent speed up in the VFP 6 code.

The code was fast when I used 100000 in VFP 6. in VB the program locked up. I couldn't go above 30000.