>>The question is would another operating system, such as Novell, respect it? That answer we don't know. Further, I also have doubts on VFP doing it in the first place. Through FPW 2.6, Fox did its own internal caching of reads and writes. Has this changed? I can't definitively answer that question. However, unless some authoritative source says that it has been changed, I must assume that it hasn't. The internal caching was done for performance reasons. Since there's been no out cry that it's degraded since that time, I must work from that supposition. So, from my POV, this represents an additional factor in the latency problem.
>
>
Peter,

>I'm not sure whether you are referring in the above to my expressions earlier (about Novell vs. NT). If not, try to find it (early hours today).
>Further, in that expression I thought of mentioning the cacheing of FPD as by you referred to right now; this was already there in FoxBase, and I think in FPD 2.0 the REFRESH TO n,N (second parameter) started being there, fully operable (learned from the Fox Software guys back then). One thing I know for sure :

I read your post, but wasn't referencing it directly. We run Novell here as well and I'm aware of some of the problems associated with it from personal experience. In fact, I don't use and refuse to use Novell's Client 32, opting for the MS Client for Netware Networks.

>We have an app in FPD 2.5 very well documenting all of the cacheing behaviour (some 10 years ago). It was just over two years ago that I encountered a difference in the behaviour of indexes (and cahcheing etc.); I don't know when this change really happened, but I assume in some client-version of Novell.
>Another thing is, that we ourselves use MS-client on Novell (5.x) server, and that the behaviour on indexes is the same right now as it already was two years ago. This behaviour is encountered as negative i.e. "not so decent" or however to explain this in one line (I don't mean unstable).

So now with the MS Client the behavior is again decent as opposed to not so decent or am I mis-reading you? I don't think I am and am interpreting it to meaning that once again you're experiencing the behavior you'd come to expect.

>So, what you do with the answer I don't know, but things have DEFINITELY changed, though not in the existing Fox-box of course. But our world is more complex nowadays.
>
Oh yes. I'm speaking of anyone in particular in what follows, but my general impression is that VFP developers don't, as a whole, understand the relationship between the OS and the applications as well as, say, the average VB developer. Then again, it's just a general impression and I know a number of VFP developers to which this definitely doesn't apply.