>>>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.
Well, I finally found time to try the code in VB5 at home (100 MHZ, 32 MB) and guess what? It took 24 seconds. I had a few other programs running, but I think we've figured out the problem. I'm amazed that it makes that big a difference.
Still, I'm glad to hear how much faster VFP 6 is than version 5. We're exploring whether or not to spend the money to upgrade and this will certainly be a big reason to do it. Thanks for the info.
Scott Dinwiddie