See inline...

>1. Does SQLS use much more disk space than VFP when storing data?

It's possible that SQL Server would require more disk space than VFP but not that much more. The storage mechanisms are very different.

What about indexes? Did you create indexes on both the VFP and SQL Server data sets? Did you include the size of the indexes on the VFP side. Remember that everything that has to do with the SQL Server database is stored within those database files: tables, indexes, stored procedures, etc.

By my calculations you're probably getting ~251 rows/page (8060 byte/page divided by 32 bytes/row) in the SQL Server table. That's a really rough estimate since there additional overhead required in the page that I really didn't account for.

You might try using SP_SPACEUSED to determine how much of the SQL Server database is actually being used.

>2. Is the delay in loading forms in VB normal - or was the delay due to the method used in the form wizard code?

Beyond me. Maybe Eric will jump in here.

>3. Where is the logic in MS promoting Access/VB/SQLS when VFP is clearly so superior in desktop and shared database applications?

I don't think anyone on the UT could give you an answer that didn't include some speculation. You really need to post this question to a Microsoft rep.

-Mike