Walter,

>Sure is that VFP is cheaper, a lot easier to install and maintain than SQL. If you don't have a high need for securing data and endurability of data then SQL might not be the most logical choice.

I don't totally agree that SQL is harder to maintain than VFP. IMO, it's a on the contrary whether small or large volume of data. VFP Data Engine while it is powerful is somewhat a problem when it comes to maintenance. Not to do anything in its Indexes in a month will make your system suffer. Aside from its FPT w/c vulnerable to corruption. It is not stable in handling binary data. With SQL-Server you can sleep as sound as you want. This is the very reason why we have 2 hospital system versions: VFP/SQL for high-end and VFP/VFP for low-end. The price of the first is more than twice higher than the price of the latter. And I always ask my boss not to promote the latter because of a lot of headache in maintaining its DB engine. VFP/VFP is just an option in a worst case scenario.

Now if you want to earn a living through Retainer's FEE, then stick to VFP/VFP combination.