>Asif,
>
>Your video card could have a lot to do with the speed too! Here's a little story for you. . .
>My 24 year old son came to visit (a coupla years back). He mentioned that he had just bought a new computer but was dissatisfied with its performance. It was a Pentium 120 and he felt it was hardly faster than his old 486.
>As it happened I had recently bought a cheap pentuim 90 and it sat right beside my good ol 486-DX2/66. He asked why I wasn't using the pentium much, and I replied that it was too slow compared to the 486! He laughed and said it couldn't be so (he knows DOS & Win. quite well, but little regarding hardware). So I offered to demonstrate. Before we tested he went over the pentium's BIOS, etc to check that all settings were OK.
>Both were totally stand-alone machines. The pentium was EISA/PCI, had 16 megs, an Adaptec SCSI controller with 2 gig. drive and a TRIDENT video card [1 meg, set to 1024 x 768]. The 486 is ISA/PCI, 32 megs, 2 x 500 meg HDs and a ATI Mach 64 PCI 2 meg video card running at 1024x768.
>For the test we booted Win 3.1 on each, loaded the same AmiPro 20 pg document, and moved the mouse of the "next page" button. Then, on the count of three, we each clicked the mouse 5 times to make a 5 page "scroll" of the screen". Son had the Pentium mouse & I had the 486 mouse.
>Well, the 486 scrolled all of the pages, I then moused to to close box and d-clicked to close AmiPro, then d-clicked to close Win 3.1, then moused to confirm close of Win 3.1, then reached into my shirt pocket for cigarette pack and lighter, took out a cig. and lit it. As I exhaled my first puff, the Pentuim FINALLY FINISHED DISPLAYING ITS 5th page of the doc!!!
>
>The moral of the story is that a video card also has lots to do with PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE.
>
>Cheers,
>Jim N
>>>>I know that most of you are not going to like this, I didn't like it either, but I had to tell a client to go with Delphi.
>>>>
>>>>The bottom line in all cases was raw speed. I have been developing apps in VFP since version 3.0 was first shipped. Even after optimizing my code to death ( yes even with version 5.0a), I cannot achieve an overall speed performance that is comparable to a Delphi app.
>>>>
>>>>If MS does not do something to give VFP a compiler type performance in its next version, VFP will get smashed against the wall.
>>>
>>>It might help if you tell us what was excatly slow.
>>
>>I am close to completing an application for an Engineering firm. The application uses multi-colored grids is multi-lingual and constantly parses a text file that receives real-time data from up-to 128 comm ports.
>>
>>The slow parts are the loading of forms and navigation within a grid.
>>
>>The multi-lingual labels on all forms are assigned values on form load via indexed SEEK. The language tables have at most 200 records at present.
>>
>>The grids are populated via views with NoDataOnLoad = .T.
>>My combobox classes also have their NoDataOnLoad property set to .T.
>>
>>Forms with Pageframes have been optimized so that only the visible page has its controls instantiated at form load.
>>
>>The grids are multi-colored and support direct Add/Edits. I have one line of code in the AfterRowColumnChange Event.
>>
>>We are using P166 with 32 MB of RAM. Overall performance is as good as Windows 95 on a 486 DX2 with 16 MB of RAM.
>>
>>I don't have a similar Delphi app, but of what I do have, I believe Delphi on a 486 DX2 could fly circles around the VFP app running on the P166s.
>>
>>I have no complaints against the Rushmore engine. But form instantiation speed which was acceptable 2 years ago is no longer acceptable.

How does Delphi help your data moves faster? Maybe your GRIDS are slow
because the data is on a network drive? What like syntax does Delphi use?
What else can you tell us about Delphi? Do you have a list that compares
vfp with Delphi?
thanks