>>Two companies I have worked for have developed ASP pages that tie into SQL data, as well as a version of the app written in VFP that runs as an active doc launched from the ASP. The ASP also detects if the VFP runtime is installed and installs it if necessary. MS is now distributing EVERY runtime in NT service packs except for VFP, go figure.

I really don't see a high demand or need for the VFP runtime to be installed on every NT machine, especially considering it's large size. I don't expect this to change in any case.

>>If I was wrong, then native apps would be gone by now and every application would be written in a web page using VBScript, Java, or the like.
>>The achilles' heel of the whole thing is users expectation of a professional application with a Windows UI that xHTML still won't provide on its own.

This will change. Things are moving towards a standard web interface, away from standard forms.

>>So I say go for the ActiveDoc if your starting out, deal with the runtime issue until its standard in every SP, and give the users a native UI they expect. You can even downplay the screens so they look like xHTML forms if you like!

I see no reason to use an ActiveDoc. An ActiveDoc is just an APP in a browser window, the same as an app running outside the browser window. The only difference is that you can download/install the app over HTTP. ActiveDocs do nothing more than a standard APP/EXE, and their UI is limited since it's in a browser window and not a stand-alone desktop form.

IMO, DHTML forms using IE5 are far more rich and powerful than any VFP or VB form.