Very interesting. Maybe I found a bug that can be squashed in VFP7?

The problem was not the quantity of tables, it was the quantity along with the fact that I had all of my tables named "table.cjh" instead of "table.dbf". It looks like the DBC can't handle tables when they don't have the .dbf extension.

I renamed the tables to do a little "security by obscurity" so the files wouldn't have an Explorer association for casual user double-clicking.

I had worked with renamed tables in the past, but they were always free tables. It looks like the DBC isn't forgiving in this respect.

Has anyone else seen this before?