Hi, Jim.

>Well I think it would do us ALL a great service if you could have an article in the magazine that gave us a good 'context' for MSDE.

I agree that such an article would be great. I just hope to find someone willing to write it. I think the best for that would be Jim Duffy, indeed. I just have to propose this to him. I'll be glad to write it myself if I had the time, but I have yet to finish a series of articles I started on another topic, and I'm really short of time right now.

Anyway, I'll use you specification as a proposal for some of the writers looking for a good topic. Of course, I can't guarantee that any author will stuck to your guideline, but anyonw would be free to take some ideas from there.

><snip>

>d) What are the **REAL** facts as regarding 'upgrading' a MSDE application to SQL Server. Things like:
>0) cost
>1) installation and software maintenance;
>2) deploying the (previously) missing parts;
>3) implications on installed OS and impact if change is needed.

I can answer this one right now in advance:
0) You have to look at the SQL licensing terms. This is the hardest issue, I think, because licensing IS complex. You have per seat or per processor options, it depends on where you are, if you have special agreements, or use Small Business Server, etc.
1) Upgrading to SQL you can use the Enterprise Manager, Query Analyzer, and other tools that facilitates DB management, so everything is much easier.
2) You can keep using everything as it was. No need to change even a single line of code -not even the connection string if you keep the same server name. About using the extended features such as replication, etc, it all depends on what do you want.
3) To install SQL Server 2000 you need NT, Win 2000 or 2003 Server. That's all. System requirements are the same, although of course it will take more if you raise the user count.

>I remain of the FIRM conviction that JimD severely maligned VFP native data when there is absolutely no need to do so, and I don't see why you say otherwise when he admitted so in his reply to me in the "Blatant attack..." thread.
>
>I have nothing against sensible and honourable and honest and practical sessions/reports/etc that promote the alternative use of MSDE (or SQL Server) within VFP applications. JimD didn't even come close to that.

Of course, I disagree with that point of view, but I don't know what you read. I just know what I heard from Jim at the conference. I saw him promoting VFP everytime, and just discouraging the use of DBF tables based on sound reasons (at least for me, that painfully suffered for most of them in the past).

But this is totally subjective, of course.

Best regards,