>>>>Well, here's my 2 cents...
>>>>
>>>>Everyone I know that is a *real* DBA says Oracle is a superior product, exactly why, I'm not sure. I know VFP won't really be able to tell the difference. My experience has been MS writes ODBC drivers for SQL, 1st, then Oracle, then Sybase. So you're more likely to get a *flawless* driver for SQL, but again, I believe Oracle is the better product.
>>>>
>>>>If you have someone there that's a DBA and knows Oracle, stick with it. If you're all green, I'd go with SQL.
>>>>
>>>>Just My Humble and Somewhat Informed Opinion (JMHSIO)
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you that there are alot of DBAs out there who share that feeling. However, everything I've read about SQL Server 6.5 seems to suggest that Microsoft is closing (has closed???) the gap considerably. I would just like to stick with a MS product as the back-end.
>>>
>>>By the way, how would you define a *real* DBA?
>>
>>I was being a little sarcastic with that. A *real* DBA, IMHO, is someone that has done more than just dabble and then decides to port everything to C/S. Someone who has become very fluent in VFP's DBC is *NOT* a DBA (s).
>>
>>A *real* DBA is someone who's taken some classes and has legitimate expeience maintaining a data server.
>
>Matt brings up an execllent point here. If you have someone already knowledgable in one product or the other, the time and money you save on drawing from that experience outweighs every other aspect of difference between the two (IMHO).
>
>Valerie

That depends, but in the case of SQL vs Oracle, I think that if you've got someone with in-depth experience in one, that's the one you should pick. But, if not, it appears from som of the other responses, that Oracle's the way to go.