>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.

Rene,

I think Barbara's right on the money. You're best off taking an n-tier approach regardless of which technologies you use. Using a "screen-scraper" thin client approach like Citrix or Hoblink may be working well for now, but its limitations will become paralyzing in time (I hate Citrix).

I personally prefer the browser as a thin client (looks nicer too if you have a good web GUI designer). May I recommend ASP for your front end or WWWC if you're married to VFP. For the middle tier, VFP works just fine or VB for that matter.

If you've already got a heavy investment in your VFP codebase, use VFP for the business/data access layer. If a rewrite is in order, you may want to give VB6 a shot (great product). For the backend, you have your choice of using a "real" database server product like SQL Server (great) or Oracle (need a DBA), or sticking with VFP :)

Enjoy,

-JT