John,

>There is no question that Fox Data has an important role. What is important is to know what that role is. As soon as one trys to stray into other areas, that is where the trouble begins.

Totally. What got me about the last place I worked was that SQL Server would probably have been a good idea (along with more migration to the web), but any "forward-thinking" expenditure such as hiring a good DBA or buying a nice server was always out of the question. Somehow we always had to prove that the new stuff would work...without ever getting the chance to _get_ any new stuff! *smile* Definitely a reactive management system instead of proactive, which is what is needed these days...

>As far as Fox being inferior to Access, if you look at size alone, Fox smokes Access. If however, your needs require the use of ADO or upsizing to SQL, Access is superior to Fox. Access's integration with SQL is better. And as far as OLE-DB is concerned, the JOLT provider - in terms of overall features - is one of the best. On a feature for feature basis, it does things that the SQL OLE-DB Provider does not do.

Not to mention that a lot of folks like Access because of ease of deployment. If you know your people have Access installed, throwing an MDB their way is pretty darn easy...

Sorry I am not familiar with the JOLT provider...is that an acronym involving "JET" that is used with Access?

>Good discussion!!

Agreed!

JoeK