>>>Which arguments do you have to not move fully to SQL Server and abandon VFP Tables?
>>
>>Some arguments were given earlier in this thread:
>>1- support clients who can't afford or don't want a SQL database
>>2- be able to migrate clients one by one without supporting 2 code bases
>
>That's why the argument for Azure hosting is becoming more and more practical.
>
>I agree with Christian and was going to make that point to Sandy - was just curious what version of SQL Server they were using.
>
>If they were using the Enterprise edition of SQL 2012 or greater, there are many significant features in the database engine that are worth tapping into.
>
>So like I said, unless there is a compelling reason to need to stay with Fox tables (and if Azure for hosting isn't an option), I don't agree with an app supporting both Fox tables and SQL tables. That kind of dual support is likely more driven by the developers that anyone else.

Just a quick follow up on my own comment in this thread. In my case I have helped a few companies to move their application from a VFP/DBF solution into a VFP/SQL as an intermediate solution. The final goal was to end up with a dotnet/SQL (or SomeOtherLanguage/SQL) solution. But since they needed the applications to run almost 24/7 and had a huge number of users, modules and tables, it was essential to do the conversions in steps over a relatively long time.