>I do realize that there is a difference between causing corruption and reporting it. I have read all of the threads that cover the issue but they seem to be inconclusive -- that's why I stated this question so bluntly.
>
>The application I am considering converting uses SQL data stores except for one critical VFP7 table. This table is shared with another application that must be protected at all costs. We have experienced sporadic problems with VFP data corruption and loss ever since the conversion to Windows 2000 (server and workstations.) Several modifications suggested here and by Microsoft have been made but we can't be certain the problem has been corrected. So my question is really this: Will conversion to VFP8 make this problem (or the perception of the problem <g>) worse from the client's point of view?

I think all questions should be blunt < s >.
Really, I don't know how it will look.
The way I'd put it is that **IF** you have "corruption" now, you may not even know it and things may be appearing to be going along just tickety-boo. So going VFP8 WILL make the situation visible. Is this good or bad?... only you can decide. Personally, that an error will now be made evident is goodness in my books, but situations do differ.

You could deploy with SET TABLEVALIDATE TO 0 if you want to continue to hide any such errors.

In point of fact I don't know if there has been enough adoption of VFP8 across the spectrum to allow valid conclusions as to real relaibility of data. But I do see that VFP8's trapping of the "corruption" can only be helpful in finally nailing the problem source once and for all.

Sorry to be so wishy-washy with a blunt question.