I do have experiece with SQL Server 6.5 and 7.0. And I think that one of MSFT's biggest misinformation (lie?) is that SQL Server 7.0 doesn't need a DBA. Do they really think that Jane Secretary is going to be able fix something when there are problems with the database?


>Everything has a cost associated with it. Those who contend that DBF's, due to their royalty-free nature always represent a lower-cost alternative to SQL may not always be correct. For example, while I may pay x dollars for a set of SQL licsenses, that cost may be more than offset by the easier time I have adminstering and maintaining SQL databases as opposed to DBF-based databases..
>
>
>
>
>
>>>What makes/does not make MS money does not enter into my decision. It is 100% irrelevant. There are those however who choose to make that an issue...
>>>
>>The corollary to "makes MS (or any vendor) money" is "costs me or my customer money." I would think that cost enter into your decisions.
>>
>>I'm not stating that it bothers me when a MS or anyone else makes money...