>> Hey, just because everyone else is an idiot doesn't mean you have to follow us over the brink. :-) I'm not sure I ever really realized REQUERY could fail: I would have written the code the evil way myself.<<

I couldn't agree more, and that is why we do test for the result. My point here is that you can reproduce the problem easier by following the generally accepted practices of sample code. Otherwise, we would have never tried =REQUERY(). I owe a debt of gratitude to every author, editor, publisher and whatever else for making =REQUERY so pervasive. Otherwise, we would have just told our users they were crazy when they said that records were sporadically not appearing. If we hadn't gone back and looked through the MS knowledge base, UTI thread, books, etc., we might not have believed our users, just as I am sure there are people here who may doubt what I am trying to say...THERE IS A PROBLEM! I can't say it is with REQUERY(), it might be memory corruption, but if my sample code cannot convince anyone here, the spirit of the VFP community is lost. Whatever happened to the FOXGANG!COMPUSERVE!

If I have lost my mind, just tell me, but I can assure you that my VFP6 app worked fine with all of our coding, the VFP8 doesn't, and I have reduced it down to base classes and a little code. What more can I do except assume that there are structural problems with VFP8 since the problem has such variability.

Garret, even if I introduce WAIT states and all of the other kludges we have found reduce the problem to 1%, with the amount of transactions we have each day, you are still talking about several hundred "record not found" or blank display. We cannot accept that.

Cheers,
Bob