Mike,

I was not making the argument - I was responding to the argument. No question that Fox + DBF's is flexible. The point I made was that .NET + SQL Server can be just as flexible. Put another way - it cannot be demonstrated that .NET + SQL Server is any less flexible than Fox + DBF's.

Nice try....

< JVP >


>Hi John,
>
>You said:
>
>>The fact is - it cannot be demonstrated that the combination of ADO .NET + SQL Server cannot be more flexible and faster than Fox + native DBF's.
>
>Removing the double negative, just for clarity sake:
>
>It can be demonstrated that the combination of ADO .NET + SQL Server can be as flexible and as fast as Fox + native DBF's.
>
>I think that I can demonstrate that Fox programs accessing Fox data can be more flexible and just as fast.
>
>I bet I can demonstrate this.
>
>How do we proceed? Using the UT Member's critieria as a suggested guidelines for flexibility is obviouslly going to be biased. Do you have suggestions that can even out this bias?