>>Yep!< s > In certain situations, it's much more efficient, from a development standpoint for one, to use a EXE to provide the services common to all applications and have it start them. The APPs will be smaller and easier to maintain. If a change is required in the services housed by the EXE, you only have to make it there, and deploy the single file. Otherwise, you'd have to recompile and distribute all the applications using those services.
>
>The only problem I have with APPs nowadays is that esthetically, I think they make vfp look a little tacky. I really only want users (and especially other developers and LAN types) to see EXEs, DLLS, and other contemporary file types in my directories, if at all possible.

And this is perfectly understandable. I'd also add, however, that the trend now is towards a more SDI like interface, as evidenced in Office 2000. I'm admittedly stratling the fence on this one. What I think would really be cool (for my situation) is something along the lines of the following. If an application was started directly, say via double clicking on it in the Windows Explorer, it would start the services module. If the service module was started, you would be able to start any of its applications via it. The big problem with the former would be resources, since subsequent double clicks in the explorer would launch additional copies of VFP. Given how resource intensive it is, this may not be a practical idea.