>You REALLY do need to take a remedial reading course, John.

Perhaps...My wife says my hearing is going as well... ;)


>
First and foremost my complaint was that some people state blatantly that MSDE **IS** SQL Server when in fact it is not.

*IF* they said something like (as DaveN did) 'everything that you do in MSDE runs without change in SQL Server' then my ONLY "beef" would be that some of those same people denigrate VFP/DBFs to SELL the MSDE concept and there should be no need for such talk.
>

Two things. First - it is a semantic argument at best to get up in arms over whether MSDE is/is nto SQL Server. In all material respects, MSDE is SQL Server to the extent that it supports just about all the features SQL Server provides. There are some replication features you don't get and as far as the other differences, they are only matters of degree. If you want to learn about/get MSDE, you need to go to the sql server areas on MSDN. You can take a sql server database and restore it to an MSDN server. Jim - does it really make a difference whether *technically* MSDE is SQL Server?

Second, while I see people - including myself - promote SQL Server and MSDE -it is not done at the expense of DBF's. Whether you want to admit this or not - DBF's *technically*, don't match up well with SQL Server or MSDE. In the areas where DBF's arguably hold an advantage - such as the ability to copy a file from one machine to another - they are relatively trivial areas. In fact, you can have MSDE installed in under 5 minutes. Attaching to an existing database does not take a lot of time either.

Jim - the people that promote SQL Server/MSDE do so because technically, tactically, and strategically, it is a better alternative. Does that mean DBF's are not serviceable? No. But, to say that SQL Server/MSDE is too administratively burdensome when compared to DBF's is pure bunk.

It is not 1985 anymore....The world of technology has progressed to the point where we don't have to settle for dbf's anymore. The world of technology has progressed to the point where better, more sophisticated solutions that fit in with the strategic needs of customers is simple to implement.

>
I don't see MS doing it, yet these non Microsoft (wannabe employees or wannabe MVPs) kick sh*t out of VFP to make their point!
>

Such as whom? As for MS - ask anybody from MS and they will likely suggest some flavor of SQL Server over DBF's. In fact, if you tell them you want a file-based solution, MS is LIKELY to suggest access before suggesting Fox/DBF's.

>
Secondly, where in the world did I say ANYTHING negative about MS in that repsonse?????
>

I infer negative comments from your constant underlying theme that MS is dong a grave injustice to Fox by not marketing the product.

>
Finally, I'm not nearly so sad about MS' failure to market VFP as you are happy that they don't. Even if, for some perverted reason, it DID make you happy, I still don't understand your crying need to revel in the fact.
>

This is absurd. I could care less whether MS markets Fox, VB, .NET, SQL Server, etc. My fortunes are not nor have they ever been tied to the level of MS marketing of a particular tool. My success has been tied to my abilities as a developer/analyst. I do not derive self-worth from how my chosen developer tools are/are not marketed. I am not saying particular people such as yourself do - I am just saying I do not.

About the only thing I revel in is in providing good advice, good insights, and to be thought provoking and yes - controversial.

I will tell you this...if MS had made Fox a central part of its strategy, it is highly likely I would not have gone to law school. In some perverted way -you should be happy MS decided not to market Fox...< vbg >...

>
And, by the way, your "right tool for the right job" is way way off too. You seem to assume that things like scalability and non-monolithic and security and monstrous data stores are de rigeur in this business. The FACT is that tens of thousands of businesses, probably hundreds of thousands including all countries where MS products are sold/used, are small-medium sized where those little goodies DO NOT APPLY but where cost is a genuines central concern. VFP fits that bill, and so is the right tool for the job, far better than SQL Server does.
>

So based on your statement above, you are saying that if you want a monolithic app that can't scale and does not have security - VFP is the right tool for the Job..... OK - strike that... I know that is not what you meant to say.... but it is a humerous interpretation of what you say here...

Man....you ought to be the Fox marketing guy!! Seriously, wasn't you that got on Robert Green's case a few years ago and said that he was not a "professional marketer"???

John