>>You will still have a problem when connected to networked DBFs though. That is why we moved away from networked dbfs and went SQL server a long time ago.
>
>You should get some kind of medal from Michel for this world record on UT - first time in history that I see someone post the same message four times in the same second.

I'll answer Walter's 4 part question here.

Walter, yes, I now also believe that there's a problem pulling the DBF out of the EXE. At my last job we had a loader that brought the current EXE down to the local machine. And I concur that a loader is always a good idea.

Now, we did have a static DBF on the network that all the local EXE would use and we had no problems with that. It contained encrypted connection strings to our various MSSQL and MySQL databases.

And, yes, any kind of SQL backend is always better than DBFs.