Hi Jim,

I'm sort of new to this client. Started here 12/13/00. They asked me to look into the situation because VFP 6 resolves some "printer designation problems" that can't be fixed as easily with VFP 5.0. BUT they do a lot of sequential SQLs with WHEREs and JOINs etc. on relatively large datatables, and the increase in time that VFP 6 takes is so significant that they can not justify "upgrading". Like 3+ sec with VFP 5 and 18+ sec with VFP 6.

If you're following this thread you've read that my tests started out between VFP 5 and VFP 6. Which is what they were testing here at the client site; all on the same hardware. When I started testing at my home office on 3 of my pcs it became more "interesting". I didn't get much difference between VFP 5 and VFP 6, but got a significant difference between VFP 6 running on different pcs. And the most disturbing is that running the tests took the longest on the fastest pc. Now I don't have VFP 5 on that pc so I can't get a good "controlled" comparision between the 2 versions running on the same pc.

But in a nutshell, the test ran about the same (3+ sec.) on Win 98 233mhz (64m ram) running VFP 5 and an NT 4.0 server (128m) running VFP 6. But took 8+ sec running on an NT Wksta, 450 mhz (128m) using VFP 6. And about the same running locally or from the NT server using that 450mhz wksta.

So I'm not convinced that it's VFP 6. I want to do some tests this weekend. I should have a clean (new) dual 800 under WIN 2000 Professional running by then and I suspect the test will run faster than all the others but again significantly faster than the NT WkSt. If so it could point to installation, configuration, setup, memory allocation, whatever. I may also get time to run the test on my old laptop which has VFP 3 and VFP 6.

I've also ordered SP 4 and will repeat the test when I get that installed.

Stay tunned.

Regards,

Paige