Jim,

Well... I guess I can easily agree with two out of four items you listed. (it's free, and it's simple to upgrade).

The other two I would take with a grain of salt. You think someone made denigrating remarks about VFP's DBFs? I'm not sure what was said but I can agree with comments like: DBF's are not secure and they are more prone to corruption and instability than MSDE/SQL Server. But your mileage may vary. Is that denigrating?

I promote the use of VFP ~AND~ MSDE/SQL Server. I don't make an issue of DBFs, publicly or otherwise. But when I can, I promote the use of MSDE/SQL Server because the data is less prone to risk. (And SQL Server has gotten fast enough over the last version or two that the VFP speed advantage is not that much of an issue.)

And the comment about easy to learn, no learning curve; it sounds like MS marketing. I never believe stuff like that. Every tool/product I put my hands on means a certain sacrifice of time to get familiar and become proficient with it.

But don't let someone else's statements cause you too much grief here. Take some time and get to know SQL Server. (That is, if you think you'll ever have the market for it.) It's a great database product. And the learning will be worth it in the long run.

Guy


>>It seems to me that part of the problem is that you consider the database as worthless unless you have a copy of SEM. But you've posted other frustrations about MSDE/SQL Server and I think something has got your goat.
>>
>>What is it?
>
>That it is "sold" consistently by a VFP MVP
>- by totally denigrating VFP native data and
>- on the basis that it is FREE and
>- with the implication that all you gotta do is to install it and use it (i.e. no learning curve) and
>- it's simple to upgrade to SQL Server (i.e. minimum customer disruption) when the time comes.
>
>VFP is having enough trouble holding its own in today's climate and we don't really need our own bashing it just to sell SQL Server licenses.