>>>>To everyone who responsed to this....
>>>>
>>>>I have spent the last 2 weeks creating tables and writing scripts in SQL to support a small C# WinForms contact management
>>>>application a client hired me to write.
>>>>
>>>>I posted this thread because I thought that 1) SQL was overkill, and 2) every time I have tried to install any version of SQL there
>>>>are failures.
>>>>
>>>>Sure enough I went to my client's office at lunch to install SQL and the app. The SQL installation failed. This is the reason:
>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/968749
>>>>
>>>>Notice the "workaround". Notice that to fix this I will have to download, install, and run some other tool, and then hope that this
>>>>will be all of it.
>>>>
>>>>This is exactly why I didn't want to go with SQL, or any other server based DB. Had I gone with VFP or Access, my client would
>>>>be using his software right now.
>>>>
>>>>Now some of you will inevitably say, have him do this, or ask him to install that... This guy is an Allstate insurance agent with the
>>>>computer literacy of my 7 year old. He expects me, rightfully so, to show up, push a few buttons, and voila! - instant software.
>>>>
>>>>Al have always held to the rule of using the right tool for the job. SQL was not the right too for this job.
>>>
>>>Well I *did* suggest the CE version. No install issues with that......
>>
>>And didn't we suggest SQL EXpress 2008?
>>
>>And if a developer says "every time I have tried to install any version of SQL there
>>are failures." I would be tempted to look for the one constant in the equation <bg>
>
>
>OTOH maybe some people are installing on a slightly grubbier user base than you high flyers up there in the clouds.
>
>There's a lot to be said for being able to install something that has no problem with whatever else is already on the machine and ,aybe fox is a bit more like that than SQL Server.

Ok, quite possible. But there is also the possibility that after getting an error saying there was a problem installing SQL2005 a 10 minute effort to try SQL Express 2008, which should have been the first try, might have yielded better results.

Just got the impression from statements like "every time I've tried to install SQL ... " that the problem was not with hardware, software or some inherent weakness in SQL Express 2008 but with unfamiliarity leading to frustration ( I've certainly experienced that enough in my own learning curve with SQL to consider the possibility <s> )

I think Bill Kuhn's offer to help him get over the hump was quite generous and Kevin would be wise to take advantage of it. I've mentored a lot of VFP developers through the transition to a SQL backend ( and in this case I think we are even talking a .NET app he thinks would somehow be simpler using an OLEDB connection to DBC ) and I have seldom found the impediments are in the technology itself.

I don't think anything with .NET using OLEDB to DBCs spells automatic "no problem with whatever else " etc.