>Not necessarily. You should write the Remote View properly so that it pulls only the records you are interested in updating to begin with.
>
True. You could write the RV that way.

>If you have a relatively weak SQL Server with a large amount of machines connecting to it doing heavy updates, you will definitely be better off using properly written remote views.

SQL Server servers are generally faster, more capable machines that individual work stations. Any company not willing to devote a few bucks to a decent size hard drive and a bunch of memory gets what they deserve - poor performance. Sorry, I have no sympathy here.

>
>Remote views also give you quite a bit more flexibility than SPT.

I disagree with you, and strongly. RV's are constrained by the fact that they can only be one select statement. You cannot chain statements together. If the update has to hit more than one table - or there is any kind of conditional processing that needs to be done - RV's are out of the question.

>
>Sometimes SPT is the best solution. It depends on you server/client situation.

RV's are very useful and they have their place, but at the end of the day they are still a VFP-specific mechanism. I would (and do) advocate SPT as the preferred choice because SP's can be used by any app that needs them.