>Tony,
>
>Are you suggesting that FP2.x does *NOT* run on WIN95?
>
>regards,
>Jim N
>
>>>>>> I need some input on having a VFP 5.0 application that is going to be used accross the US by my office on a number of LANS, some that will have users connected over 56K dedicated lines. I know that using VFP 5 will involve some increased overhead as apposed to the prior version of Foxpro this was written in (FP 2.x DOS/Windows).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can anyone offer input as to how I can optimized the application, as to squeeze as much speed out of it as possible. I am locked in (maybe even held prisoner..) to the existing database design (very Un-normalized).
>>>>>
>>>>>Tony,
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah.. someone from the other Vancouver. Your last post went through.
>>>>>
>>>>>If your EXE is on the local PC, your app shouldn't run slower than the dos version of Foxpro in the same circumstances. (Someone jump in if I am wrong here).
>>>>
>>>>You are somehow. The interface is much slower in VFP than DOS.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Paul,
>>>
>>>Yes, I should have qualified that statement. The forms will be much slower, but the data access (SQL) should not be.
>>Evan,
>> Being the way the data is structured (Many tables versus a more relational design), this is where I think one of the MAJOR hangups will and is occuring...
>>
>>Plus the fact that in my opinion, this is just a porting of the existing code from FP 2.x to VFP, will make it a very hard app to maintain... There was no real taking advantage of the features of VFP, besides the fact that it runs under Win 95...
>>
>>Thanx!
>>
>>Tony Miller
>>Vancouver,Wa

Jim,
Not at all.. I am mainly stating the facts, that FP 2.x was NOT ment to run under Win 95, but for most part (Less a few estetic problems) it works fine.. My problem is mainly I have a database design that I inherited from the previous person in my position (Who was given it by the boss and the other programmer I work with) that is not really relational, but more a flat file layout, with some limited relationships setup with lookup tables..

In this sense, it would not matter if we were using VFP or FP 1.02, the data design is bad!!! The system tracks work orders, and in my implimentation, I would have 3 tables for the main data (one for the parent data, and one each for the of the work order types), bu in the case of this system, we have one header table and one work order parts table, for EACH work order!!

So when we want to open up 3 work orders, we need to open up all the tables at that time, and with Foxpro, that slows things down...

But, then again, if I went that far, I would probably want to rewrite the app to more of my standards, and that would take time..

The reason I was given that is to maintain compatability with older systems that need the data in this wacked out format..

Sorry, I am just disgusted with this layout and stuff..

Thanx!

Tony Miller
Vancouver, Wa