>>Kevin
>>
>>Ironically the fact Oracle will be more expensive and have a bigger project footprint probably adds to its attraction at management level. It seems more "serious".
>
>This is what we think down here, no logic to the decision at all.
>
>>The VFP setup always seemed (when I was there) underresourced.
>
>Yes, but we now have 3 trained developers and a trainee, all in fox.


The 3 developers sounds much better. I thought you where still on your own.


>
>>Also as others have mentioned the flexibility offered by the developers has caused the timescale to stretch.
>>The rigidity which may come with Oracle will help timescales but doubt if your users are going to be happy.
>
>The users/customer would never agree to the cost of ORacle, that's why I don't think it will happen, the most that will happen (which is what we've been asking for the last 3 years) is the DB to be put into a SQL-Server back-end so that we can do away with a copy in each 7 offices.
>
>Kev



That sounds like an ok result to me.

But VFP could also cope with the 7 offices data. The restriction was if I remember on the ability of your network to support all the offices accessing one database.