Yeah...but, then again, maybe what we're talking about is reducing an EXE from, maybe, 800K to 500K but still requiring 6MB runtimes.

>>I've also heard arguments made (that I agree with) calling for a more compact version of the VFP runtimes that tosses out all backward-compatible stuff (you know, the stuff that when you look in the Help file says "For backward compatibility, use XXXX instead").
>
>Or a compile time switch that allows this.