> I am confused by this paragraph. Why would they state that VFP is not as > robust as SQL Server with a Visual Basic front end? Are they comparing VFP > to SQL Server? I'm using VFP to create front ends to SQL Server. My > co-workers are using VB3 to create front ends to SQL Server and Oracle > Server. Yesterday I demonstrated how I use VFP to connect to the server and > I showed some of VFP features. A co-worker did the same with VB3 with Q&E > Multilink. I think VFP is a much better tool! If there are advantages to > using VB over VFP, they sure aren't apparent to me. > I'm glad I'm not the only one confused. <g> I don't use VFP5 to SQL Server on a regular basis, but I do tinker with it at home (doesn't everyone have an NT Server with SQL Server on it at home?). I can't for the life of me figure out what is *not* robust about VFP5 front-ending SQL Server. It is extremely speedy. I have fired off a note to MS marketing on this article. I quoted the same stuff you have just seen and further explained to them that MS might need a press version of VFP5 that has training wheels on it because the product just seems to be too difficult for the press to figure out. They look at it thinking xBase and, when it doesn't match their expectations, they don't know what to do with it. Then they fall in line with the rest of the reviewers by saying it doesn't fit into the MS product line and say it's not as robust as VB5, because everyone knows VB5 is now 1000% faster than VB4. [I'd like to puke.] Anyhow, you've come to the same conclusion on that "robust" comment I did. ==Carl