Oh. Your right, I misunderstood you are trying to achieve here. That aside, my wish for Tahoe still remains. I'm also curious about bits of info I've heard and read about being able to run forms created in Tahoe, as is, in a browser.

>Colin,
>
>I think we're talking about two different things here. You're talking about using remote control software like pcAnywhere to run VFP over a WAN. I'm talking about installing VFP on the remote machine and accessing the data on the host file server over the WAN just like you would over a LAN.
>
>>The biggest problem with VFP in terms of running it in a WAN situation or Citrix WinFrame (and similar technologies) is that VFP treats the entire display as one huge bitmap. If anything on a form needs to be refreshed the entire screen is refreshed and sent down the pipe. I'm hoping Tahoe has corrected this.
>>
>>>John,
>>>
>>>I have to believe that they've made an error in this case. I've run C/S apps over a 28.8 connection. The performance is sluggish, but bearable. I once tried running a FoxPro application over a 56K leased line connection. This is totally impractical. I'd love to hear from anyone who's running FoxPro over a WAN and is satisfied with the performance.
>>>
>>>I have a customer who ran similar tests with a sniffer and found a huge difference between VFP and C/S.
>>>
>>>Is it me or does STB's biggest competitor have a C/S version while STB does not.
>>>
>>>Just my 2cents.
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>A couple of months ago I attended a class at SBT Accounting (a large software company using Foxpro) were the class was told that they (SBT) had used a sniffer to compare C/S and foxpro net traffic and they discovered that C/S reduces traffic by (at best) 10% and only if the program is using very large databases. I don't have more information but I bet SBT can be contacted.
>>>>
>>>>John Fabiani