snip
>
>Security, tables larger than 2GB, and SQL full support are all very good reasons to use a database server. I can't reconcile how a business that requires tables greater than 2GB is not a candidate for a C/S solution.
>
Jim,

Well, let me try a response. . .

1) Security:
Size is of no relevance here. Security includes more than security of the data after a "catastrophe", like just keeping prying eyes off the stuff and generally limiting who can actually see the information, even outside of the 'native' creating product.

2) Size greater than 2 gig.
While it is generally the case that 2 gigs is ample for small/medium business, my most significant prior app (FPD 2.x) was made up of 36+ gigs of data. The company was less than 300 staff, 250+ of the "connected" and using the system. The customer database alone was approx. 10 gig. It would have been far easier/faster to maintain if there had been the ability to store it as one table. I guess the good old Chunnel project serves as another example.

3) SQL full support
FP then VFP was continuously improving SQL capabilities, version to version.
This is what I'd like to see continued. My concern is that, as mid-tier, there really is no need for more sophistication of SQL within VFP, so here again the developer toiling to deliver a comprehensive VFP solution to his customer is disadvantaged in the longer term.

I'll now try to go back to, as far as this type of thread is concerned, lurk mode.

Cheers,

Jim N