>>Hiya Bill ----

>>Yes. A VFP app with the native database engine *is* faster. But it seems to me that speed is not your only issue here.

I'm aware of that, but in this case I don't see it as much more than that.

>>Certainly there has to be *some* I/O with the data server? And that could come from a number of different apps, right? Sounds like the data management capabilities of SQL Server are needed.

95%+ of the data is read-only. The value for the customer is mostly the data.

>>This sounds like a topological nightmare regardless of whether or not VFP or SQL Server is managing the data.

Agreed.

Things not mentioned -- Data Maintenance (DBA stuff). This is a breeze with VFP, but a bear with SQL Server.
>
>>SQL Server 7.0 makes some giant strides in ease-of-use. In fact, I've had some SQL Server DBAs tell me that they fully expect that some applications may not even need to be babysitted by a fulltime DBA.

Yeah, that's been echoed by others on this thread. I've signed up for a MSFT course on SQL Server 7.0 this Saturday. Hopefully that will shed some light as well.
>
>John, part-time DBA (i.e. consultant) may be more expensive :).

Thanks for your input,

Bill