>Tell me something, is ACCESS an enterprise solution?? In fact, what defines an 'enterprise' in your books - or anyone else's? Doesn't that depend on the size of the 'enterprise'?
>

I don't think there is a precise definition of what an enterprise is. I suppose MS has its view. As far as Access is concerned, my guess is that you would be shocked at how many websites use Access as a data engine.


>Is the only alternative for a business that has outgrown ACCESS to move to SQL Server? It must be . . . because that is all I ever hear at MS functions. And I think that this is the very issue that pisses off so many of us who know that VFP could very easily fill that 'void'.
>

DBF's are not a substitute for SQL. Yes, DBF's are flexible and they can hold large amounts of data. However, filling the void and being the right tool for the job are two different things. SQL has too many advantages relative to its cost to not be seriously considered.

From a business standpoint, MS is justified in pushing SQL over DBF's. Pushing SQL over DBF's is also justified from a technical standpoint.

< JVP >