I really don't see this as a case of one or the other. If you design an n-tier app, there's no problem using SQL Server on the backend and VFP as the middle tier, and maybe also as a frontend. As far as the client side--that has nothing to do with what your backend is at all. You could use SQL Server for the backend and have a VFP fat client, or do a thin client. You can even use VFP for all three tiers.

>We've heard it before and I've read all the threads. Just need to have it spelt out again.
>
>This week I have a meeting with a large customer (200 users) asking about our front end / back end etc. Currently, it's just VFP, no SQL Server. I'm worried that this may cost us the contract. Benefits of VFP: cost (customer) / no adaptation to software required (us). Benefits of SQL Server: encryption, ? reliability.
>
>We're not in a position right now to convert to SQL. I need to find some arguments though to convince them to use VFP and e.g. Hoblink JWT (www.hobsoft.com) (is like Citrix but then cheaper, works well) or Citrix. Using thin client I think would be faster than SQL Server anyway. Or, should we see the light, put all resources in creating a SQL Server back end and be done with it forever (well, for a while anyway)?
>
>I would be grateful for some opinions.
>
>Rene.