Hmm OK - not quite as bad as I thought. The situation is this. I am creaing a complex package solution for about 40 clients who users of an old mini package (there are other users out there who are not clients .....yet), so programming for one client is not an option at this point - they must use my VFP solution. This one guy wants to use thin client so his employees can't play games or load unapproved stuff on their computers. Cost is also a factor (they're cheap *G*).He has about 40 stores in 8-10 locations over a Frame Relay set-up. We are trying to convince him there are better solutions (eg NT) so the more arguments the better. Thanks for your answer. It will help.

>
>The biggest problem with VFP apps under Citrix is speed; screen update time is poor, and refreshing a single control requires refreshing the entire active window because of how VFP controls and windows work. It does work, but whether the speed of screen update is acceptable is going to depend heavily onb how busy your forms are and the speed of your connection.
>
>Thin client is worth it in many cases; an n-tier approach to development, with a front-end that uses standard Windows controls is probably the best course of action. VB with the right choice of widgets is probably a better front-end choice than VFP; VB with non-compliant widgets is just as bad as VFP. InterDev has worked well for me in the experiments I've done. I have yet to actually put an InterDev-based front-end solution in place in a production environment for a client, although I have a couple of pilot projects going that seem to be working well.
>