Bob,

I can't tell you anything useful about SQL Server.

But have they rejected the option of continuing with VFP with centralized data store of VFP data?

If their reasoning is specifically the future of VFP, then the recent release of version 7 and the increasing publicity of VFP may make a difference in their thinking.

good luck,
JimN

>I have a VFP medical application which runs happily enough in about 10 locations in London, each location having its own version of the system on their local servers. The headquarters for these 10 locations is now making noises about combining all ten systems into one with the data stored on a SQL server at the headquarters and each location accessing the data via a VFP front end - thus removing the need for servers at each location.
>
>Is this really practical with VFP as the front end and data stored on an SQL server?
>
>Presumably this means that the EXE file will be stored on each location's PC.
>
>Will this result in a significant increase in accessing data provided of course the links between the SQL Server and each location are up to it?
>
>What should be the minimum data transmission speed between the SQL server and each location?
>
>Obviously if I go ahead with this I am going to have to teach myself SQL Server and how to store data in it. Is this a pain or is it fairly easy for the average
>programmer?
>
>I would appreciate any feedback from anyone with experience of the above.
>
>Many thanks
>
>Bob McGilvray