>Here is the situation:
>
>I have a system developed in FoxPro 2.5 DOS. It has 80 screens, 240
>reports, 72 databases, the largest of which has approximately 55,00 records. It has been on ongoing development for the last 6 years. We are at the point now where we are going to run the code thru the Windows FoxPro 2.6a tranporter and then run the system in Visual FoxPro 6.0 (this is the easiest way since we have already put in $200,00 worth of work and don't want to have to re-write all the screens and reports directly in Visual if we don't have to). This system will be running on an NT network with 9 workstations.

I have an application in FPW26 that was having problems on a specific computer. Since all workstations were now in NT4, I tried to simply run my code in VFP. I had very few modifications to do, but it otherwise works great. I did not convert anything: I just created a new project with the .SPR files, .MPR, etc. You might want to try this little trick first.

>Lately, my client has been hearing from other sources, that SQL Server 7.0 (no mention as to what the front end would be) would be a better alternative for his system for lots of reasons according to his sources: more stable environment, less costly changes, the fact that they have been telling my client that Visual FoxPro will be dead within 2 years. They have quoted him about $40,000 to re-do the system, which is, in my opinion, way off base. There are some very, very intricate procedures/programming logic in the system. I can't for the life see how this could be a better alternative for him.

Less costly??? I'd be surprised if that source considered the price of SQLServer itself and the licences. He might argue that Microsoft will change it's licensing methods, but let's not forget that the price of SQLServer itself also goes up - real up!!!

As for the dead Fox, I say, like pretty much everyone else here, that it's not true. Since that source is such unreliable on this issue, how can he claim that SQLServer will be better?

More stable... I think it greatly depends on the programmers/designers. I've seen people with 8 years experience who, in my opinion, makes mistake I did in my first year of college!

As for the front end, VFP can handle SQLServer very easily.

>My question(s) for you is, do you think Visual is going to be dead in 2 years, do you think that Visual running 2.6 Windows code will be stable enough to work, what is your opinion on using SQL Server with these size databases, what are the ongoing support/other costs involved with SQL Server that maybe my client does not realize will be there in the future and any other opinions.

For 55,000 records, SQL is overkill, I think. VFP can easily handle that few records. For the cost, like I said, check out the price for SQLServer and the licences required.

Just my opinion! :)

Hope this helps!