Back at you Doug,

M$ has this sucky mdb thingy too. Why do they contiue to up it's anti with each year version they release? Because they need to and they want to.

If they delivered a true RDBMS to us and called is SQL Light that would be fine by me. Actually it is what I want.

Gains for developers:

1) Security at the database level
2) Tight intergration into the bigger MS game plan
3) Overcome the 2 gig limit
4) Error handeling would become less stringent on file stability, can use the table, is the cdx good, is the memo field FUBAR.
5) Corporate DBA's may acknowledge VFP as acceptable
6) Transactional logs on the databse level
7) Dump a database before you back up to tape
8) Ability to span multipe "drives" in a multi raid server

Just to name a few benefits

---

>Hey Stephen.
>
>>What would I like to see? A real DBC. Foreget all those lose tables. Give me a real database, it's about time. Have key generation automatic, as well as RI. Why not add a transaction log? All these are factors in RDBMS stats and FP any flavor always made the developer do it. Problem is that the database should do it. Stored Procedures should fire from outside of VFP too.
>
>We already have all that. It's called SQL Server <g>.
>
>Seriously, why would MS spend time putting all these features into VFP when they already have a product with those features? VFP can talk to SQL Server just fine, so I don't think this request makes much sense.
>
>Doug