>>>Which arguments do you have to not move fully to SQL Server and abandon VFP Tables?

..
>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.

ACK that by targeting different backends more than a few newer capabilities in specific backends will be missed.

BUT for some vertical apps running on a customer-defined backend is conditio sine qua non for the sale.

One of the conversions from pure direct table usage to CA was done to offer SQL server as a backend and a positive ROI just by that.
When a different customer with Oracle Only policy was landed 2 years later, setting up test servers with Oracle was about as time consuming as the needed tweaks in vfp code. As the # of licences for that customer was high, being able to go after that customer financed a lot of new development ;-)