>I agree with your suggestion to get a better network, but using VFP transactions won't give you a consistent state if the network goes south during a transaction. A VFP transaction is only rolled back if the application still has access to the data when you issue a ROLLBACK. I don't think it will help here.
>
>The SQL Server implementation should help. It will allow you to use transactions to guarantee consistency. If the network connection dies while you're running a stored procedure, the SP should still complete its work on the server. You'll also see much better performance. However, if your network is having problems you'll still lose your connection to the server every time it goes down and VFP will return an error when you try to update or query data on the server. It will be a different error and your data won't get corrupted, but you'll still get an error.
>
>>Get a better network :-).
>>Are your updates/inserts wrapped in transactions (begin transaction/ end transaction. This wouldn't solve your networkproblem, but at least you should get a consistent state of your data.

You're right Josh ! Thanks.