>Hi,
>
>We are going to upgrade a mainly DOS FPD 26 computer system (+/- 20 stations) into a Windows 95 environment under VFP. Our planning is as follows:
>
>Fase 1: rewrite the dos application into VFP, leave the data more or less as they are.
>Fase 2: go C/S - probably SQL Server.
>
>Should be done between this and say 1 year max.
>
>User needs are more or less confined to the application under VFP within the planning horizon (no Web, moderate Office, some C/S but of secundary importance).
>
>Response times to the server is our main concern, but we are now running 486 SX Compaqs with 12 Meg (the server is powerful) and are satisfied (but remember, we are still running the application in DOS).
>
>Now here are my questions:
>
Here's my two cents!
>a) do we _need_ NT on our stations?
Absolutely not! The headaches involved with setting up and administering NT machines (no plug and play, driver availability, hardware compatability, legacy software, etc.) are not worth it. Stick with Win '95. It's much more stable and you'll sleep better!
>b) is there any advantage of going NT on station level (my experience on smaller systems on W95/VFP is satisfactory as far stability is concerned).
No! See answer to question a.
>c) is the extra investment (Scusi, more memory) in the quality of the stations worth the advantage in (b)?
No! See answer to b.
>
>Or am I not seeing something?
I seems you see just fine!
Gary
"It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams
