SNIP
>Let's remember that VFP is a file-based database engine.
SNIP

John,

While I also don't think that making the VPF OLE-DB Provider free for (separate) download would affect the sales of VFP, MS thinks otherwise. I see this as the same as MS saying that people should NOT wait for a SP to upgrade to VFP7. They felt this was a correct stance despite the FACT that many many users make it a POLICY to await the first SP of any software before upgrading.

But I really want to discuss a bit the statement that I kept, above, from your post...

I contend that virtually everything that we have available to us today is "file-based"!
I also think that the essential differences are, in order:
1) PR - how a product is promoted (or maligned in the promotion of another product);
2) Features that the vendor has built into the product.

MS has its reasons for pushing SQL Server and dedicating so much to its development. So it naturally ends up with far more in the way of features and capabilities. But, as I see it, these all work basically the same way (internally and storage-wise) as VFP does in the case where VFP has similar capabilities.

I feel that saying "VFP is file-based" is a mis-statement IF it's intent is to imply that therefore SQL Server isn't. And if it's intent is otherwise then I don't see a need for the statement.

I guess, for instance, that I could argue that VFP is BOTH file-based and set-based, making it one of the smarter database systems out there.

Jim