>>But having just tested it with Row Level buffering, UNLOCK and UNLOCK ALL BOTH Tableupdate the current record.
>
>I didn't know about that, and I don't know whether this behaviour is by design or not.
>
>However, I want to point out that when you use buffering, you will usually not need to use explicit locks as well. VFP takes care of it.
>
>For instance, the usual recommendation is to use optimistic buffering. If you do, the record is locked automatically as soon as you try to save changes with TableUpdate(), and unlocked immediately afterwards.


If 'Unlock All' updates records then I should get a concurrency error when issuing table update.

Is it possible that some setting on the server "NT4" could have an effect with regards to 'Unlock All' that I cannot reporduce on the Development Machine "Win 2000".

Much Thanks
Jeff