Hi Lucien,


>yes, if i understand you correctly, the C/S solution IS NOT the global solution... there is the simple matter of selecting the right tool for the job!

Well what I am trying to convey here is my confusion. Is that what you call ranting? Well then let us rant!

> there are still lots of clients out there that only need a small fast network system/solution and in my experience FP2.0 does this job extremely well.

I agree with this statement, and I would have said the same thing not later than a month ago, before I installed my brand new version in VFP.

But we are dealing with a strange phenomenon: What you say assumes that our job consists of giving our clients most functionality for the lowest possible price. As true as this may look, it is not like that anymore at this point in time, because if it was, noboddy in his right mind would have gone to Windows: programming in Windows is much more expensive, for comparable user functionality. Nevertheless our clients are more pleased and thus ready to pay more for Windows programs, even though this is not the optimal decision for them in terms of budget. Call it bandwagon effect, call user motivation, I do not know.

And that is precisely why we do now have to make the change to windows.

Now M$ and Borland as far as can see would like to adopt the C/S paradigm as well. And if it was not for VFP, I think we would have been obliged to do so.

What I see here, is a lot of small projects that have be handled in a professional way and where C/S is not a crucial requirement especially it brings with it a lot of overhead in terms or hardware and software (how much would that be, is my question). Flexibility, maintainability etc are much more important here because in nature these small projects tend to be more difficult to define (less trained personnel, less structured organisation etc.), and so you have to be able to adjust.

Regards,

Marc