>>
>>I have heard here that you can even get sued by some offended client for 'misguiding' them into purchasing your VFP application
>
>I think I'm the only one who has mentioned getting sued in this thread so just in case this is a reaction to my comments I'd just like to clarify I said I be very reluctant to advise a client to put their back end data in DBFs vs SQL Server - and that was in the context of VFP apps. Very different from implying I would be misguiding clients if I got them to purchase a VFP applicaiton.

I might have taken it wrong then;
However, there are apps which are much better off with DBC/DBFs as they require zero maintenance, then getting
boggled down into ODBC, server administration etc.
Now if application does not handle DBC/DBFs correctly is another story. It is true that many people (in early days especially)
delivered half baked apps which were corrupting dbf's, but this does not mean anything. DBF's can be very productively used
depending on app requirements. They are infact very safe when used with buffering/transactions implemented throughout.
This is my personal experience up to now. Only problem appear with high data volumes due to 2gb table limit (scalability) nothing else. For those apps where expected data volumes are high, CS app/SQL Backend architecture should have been choosen from very start.

>> Well designed VFP apps with a SQL data store can be supplemented rather than replaced by modules in other languages for web, mobile, reporting etc. and give clients a better path for evolving while still using the sound, fast VFP app they invested in.

If you ask me, this is about the best possible scenario for smart Foxies!
You keep VFP/CS app connecting to MSSQL or Oracle that does all heavy lifting on data, while mounting any number of
glitzy web / mobile interfaces in language of your choice. NET sure have good things to offer there.
'Conversion' would in this case occur naturally, based on real advantages we start seeing in NET, or other technologies.

What is wrong with 'Blend of Technologies' ? {g}