>What needs to happen - is someone needs to convince MS to Build a VFP Server engine (much like the BDE Borland made) that could be licensed just like SQL and others. This package would need to contain all components necessary to provide security, connections and transaction between a VFP desktop program and ISVFP Server Tables, without requiring a VFP developer to build or purchase 3 party "classes". That is what needs to happen.
>


Don't count on it.

>I don't know why it has not been done yet? We know MS has a history of repackaging ideas, why haven't they done this?

What benefit would it gain them? They want large database applications to use SQL Server.

> It almost seems like some kind of arrangement is in play to forclose the prospect that MS would build a product that would certainly offer benefit to the entire development community. We would have some choice SQL or ISVFP (engine).

You already have a choice. Use VFP tables, use SQL Server, or use MSDE. With VFP 7 you will even have the choice of VFP tables through OLEDB.

>I would not mind developing systems entirely in OLE script, providing I had the ease of design and implementation afforded by the very powerful (and quick) Rushmore Engine.
>

Since version SQL Server 7.0, it can no longer safely be said that VFP and Rushmore are faster than SQL.

>Don't write off VFP. Computer Associates (the Clipper Guys) recently purchased SBT.

And if I remember correctly, they announced that they would be rewriting SBT in VB.