I see nothing weird here. Transaction and Buffering are different species. That's another story that when we use BEGIN TRAN then VFP itself will create something like a buffer internally (it's just a guess), but again it's internal code and not a programmer responsibility.

>Hi, Jim, jess, Edward-
>
>I was under the same assumption that transactions weren't valid for unbuffered tables, but in fact you can use transactions with unbuffered tables.
>
>Of course all the processing has to occur within the transaction, and so it makes no sense to me to use them. But, it is valid. Weird.
>
>>>>>Correct me if I am wrong, transactions has been around since fox2.x and at that time no such thing as buffering feature. If there is, then there could be a different implementation in VFP.
>>>>
>>>>Transactions were totally new to VFP 3.0.
>>>
>>>Do you want to say that if buffering=1, then transactions are prohibited? Should VFP raise some error in this case?
>>
>>If I recall the docs correctly, yes that is what I am saying. Of course looking just now I could not find any reference that asys that, it does say that the atbles must be in a database though.