>>Hello,
>>
>>I've been running few tests accessing VFP tables with VB. Using ODBC or an ADO seems to be really slow. I opened a form in VB that loads my user table connected by an ADO on the same disk. It took 17 seconds to appear using an AMD300Mhz with 64 Meg of RAM. The VB manual says ADO is a resource hog. I guess:) My question is, does VB have the same performance problem connecting to an SQL Server database or an Access database? If so, why does so much of the documentation on client server architecture using Microsoft technologies recommend using VB?
>>Seems to me VFP is faster to develop the interface and much faster at runtime, and supports large centrally located database'. Any comment?
>>
>>Eric K.
>Eric,
>As hardware you have a little beast :) (I have been upgraded from AMD K6 200 to K6-2 333 recently :).
>I didn't use ADO but ODBC. It's really slooooow. Even a few thousand records retrieveal from a local disk kills.
>MS advising VB is solely the problem of MS and neither you nor I responsible for it :)
>Cetin

Well, we almost made a horribly bad decision here but are sticking with VFP after all. There is too much evidence in support of Fox coming up everyday.
You should check out http://www.rasql.com/netvfpm.htm I'm not sure why everyone is going VB crazy. From a database standpoint it seems to be a 'no brainer' after not much research. I have a good friend nearby who has started using VB and after 1 month is regretting his decision. I have recommended he take the time to learn real OOP and be much better off in the long run. ;) It seems someone is looking after a marketing idea rather than the best interest of the customer...?

Eric K.