John,

You've received a lot of good advice. I thought I'd throw my two cents in as well. It is certainly true that VFP does not pull all records over the network if your query is at least partially Rushmore optimized. I've queried large tables that would take several minutes just to copy from the LAN to a work station in a few seconds. It's also true that VFP data will result in more network traffic than client/server so 100mb ethernet is probably worth the extra $.

There are a lot of things you can get from a client/server system that VFP alone can't provide:

- Transaction processing. If VFP crashes while it's writing a transaction the transaction will be partially committed. Client/server will roll the transaction back or forward when the server is restarted.

- Replication. Most c/s databases include sophisticated replication features that are much more powerful than VFP's off-line views.

- WAN performance. VFP will often out-perform client/server on a LAN, but client/server is much faster over a slower connection.

- Backup. Client/server databases allow you to back up the database while people are using it and back up all changes since the last full backup.

If you need any of these features you may want to look into client/server. Otherwise, you should get great results with native VFP data.

>Is client/server beneficial beyond data security issues for few, 8 or less, users? I read something lately that said vfp downloads all of a table's records regarless of the SQL where as client/server does not. Also, is Fast Ethernet much of an advantage over 10 mbs Ethernet in small multi users environments? The hardware and cabling cost is not much more but if its a waste that would be good to know. Thanks
>John