Thanks for your comments.

I guess one thing that may not have been clear in my post is that this is not a corporate application that we use. This is a line of business POS application with hundreds of installations worldwide. Some are single-user, others are LAN's, and a handful are terminal server. We have some new prospects that want to use it in organizations with 200-300 users. Of course the first question from their MIS guys is "Can you run against MS SQL server or Oracle?", followed by "Ok then, how does the VFP engine perform under heavy transaction load?" So we're looking for some verifiable references to other VFP based applications that are handling such a workload.

As far as your post goes, your opinion is correct, it's exactly like a mainframe (time-share) system. And of course, for our installations that use terminal services we are running local (local with 10-75 concurrent instances of the application!) And no, we're not considering moving to client-server, we feel that would be a major step backwards.

>>Remember, on a terminal server, all the users are really running the application on the same computer. Each user has a seperate "virtual computer" on the terminal server, but for all intents and purposes you have lots of copies of the same application running on one computer, all accessing the same data files locally.
>
>IMO, if you're using Terminal Server, you're basically running "local" and there would be no benefit to moving to a client-server configuration.
>
>Your setup is not much different from the Mainframe and "dumb terminal" setups (eg. IMS DB/DC) that have historically been able to handle "many" concurrent Users.
>
>Any problems that you do encounter should be able to be remedied thru hardware: more memory/processors on the server and/or a faster network for feeding "images" to the terminals.
>
>That said, one should still keep "efficient" programming in mind, regardless of the data engine.