John

It all sounds very reasonable, but why then did you say

>> Fox lousy native Client Server support notwithstanding...

?

With such a comment you are not comparing local tables with SQL tables as you insist. You are making an absolute criticism of VFP's C/S abilities- it *is* an Absolute criticism because you have not modified or qualified it. Had you said "VFP and its views do not scale as well as VB/ADO using proprietary backend C/S features" I would be inclined to agree with the point, though I would disagree if that became the sole basis for a declaration of inferiority. Even with the problems associated with opening VFP views on a busy dbc I think your assertion leaves out too much "real life" to be safe.

FYI: I would not be surprised if a fairly ordinary business SQL query against Cache, even using a parameterised query, is quicker than an ADO/SQL Server SP hit on the same hardware and data. If this is the case, wide use of "performance" features in SQL server which you equate with better scaling, prevents an effective shift to Cache with its even better scaling, whereas use of "lousy" VFP views certainly does not.

Of course there may be people who have no intention of even looking at let alone considering Oracle or Cache. For such people, your comments are valuable as long as you qualify them.

I hope I have made myself clear now. No, I have no intention of promoting VFP data store as always better than SQL server- completely different topic.

I do agree that it is not good to misconstrue what people say as a debating tool and I have no intention of doing that.

Regards

JR