>Mark,
>
>>Also I have heard that Progress has terrible performance (and I suspect there are many more VFP programmers than Progress programmer)
>
>My current contract is at a place that uses Progress running on big fast Solaris boxes, and I regularly hear comments from the next cubicle such as: "I'm doing that load now -- it will be done in about 5 hours", and "the monthly billing calc now runs for about 6 days..."
>
>I always shake my head and smile slyly.
>
>I know this is not a very scientific analysis -- but I get the idea that Progress is not known for speed. I've never run anything in Fox 2.6 thru VFP that takes more than a few minutes, even with millions of records.

I don't care if your claims are exagerated but mine is more than true.

Adding insult to injury, the POS Progress program that we replaced with VFP generates Daily Cashier Report after 2 hours of consodilation. The one in VFP starts 10 minutes after. I don't know if we differ much on the structure but the company seems to be especialized in POS applications.