Walter,

So far, none of you have been able to come up with a single instance of where Fox is more flexible than SQL Server.

As far as the difference between flexibility and scaleability - it is interesting that you don't realize that scaleability is a threshold issue here. In other words, before you can determine whether a tool is flexible, you need to determine whether it can do the job in the first place. In terms of a 10gb table - yes, Fox can do it so long as you horizontally partition the table. That said, when it comes to building indexes, the inflexbility of Fox becomes readily apparent. The lack of full text searching - again - the flexibility of Fox becomes readily apparent.

Do we need to continue here??? No - I don't think so....

< JVP >

>John,
>
>Your boolean logic is seriously flawed again.
>
>>>>Your argument was that Fox would be MORE flexible. All I have to do is find 1 instance where that is true - and your argument is defeated. I can find a lot more - but 1 is all it takes....
>
>What if I find two instances where the FOX is more flexible, then the found 1 is irrelevant? You really need a checkup. I wonder how you could ever write a single line of code with that kind of logic.
>
>Also, you're not able to see the difference between flexibility and scalability. hmmmm.
>
>Walter,