>We are upsizing a large VFP application from a VFP backend to an SQL-Server backend. We have always assumed that the VFP MEMO datatype should be upsized to SQL-Server's TEXT datatype, and this approach seems to work great for us without any problems.
>
>However, we recently got feedback from an experienced SQL-Server DBA at a client who wants us to upsize to SQL-Server that this is a bad design choice because the TEXT datatype is subject to the same type of data corruption that we occasionally see in VFP's MEMO fields.
>
>We've never heard of major problems with SQL-Server's TEXT datatype, so we would like a second opinion. Does anyone out there have experience, good or bad with SQL-Server TEXT fields, and how stable they are compared to VFP's MEMO fields? Any feedback would be appreciated.

Shawn;

I have been using text data types in SQL Server 7.0 for about two years without any problems. At the SQL Server 7.0 kickoff in December of 1998, Steve Balmer stated: "No DBA is required for SQL Server 7.0". If you do not have a DBA, then you should know everything a DBA knows.

By the way - the last time I had a memo field problem was with VFP 3.0 in 1995. Maybe I am just lucky. I have met DBA's that hate text fields in SQL Server and insist they not be used. Then I have clients that want to add comments to a list box so I use text fields.

Guess you have to go with politics or what you feel will be best. Depends upon what you are allowed to do - but I see no problem with stability of text fields.

Tom