>>>>The spirit of the message is that Access in no way has the power of VFP.
>Yes it is simpler to use but in a direct comparison I believe most 'power
>users' will choose VFP.
>>>>
>>>>As proof, look at the Jet engine as it develops & you will see more &
>more FoxPro data engine 'parts' being added to Jet. First there was
>Rushmore support & now FoxPro indexes included in Jet.
>>>>
>>>>Tom
>>>
>>>What is Jet engine?
>>>
>>>I want to say that if MS enhances Access with the power of VFP (don't
>forget is a newer DBMS and it doesn't have all the "old things" and doesn't
>have to support everything in the back) and drops VFP (I really hope Bill
>won't do it)... we all will have to move to Access (or something else).
>>
>>Vlad
>>
>>Jet Engine? Those little things that hang down under an airplane! (s)
>>
>>Actually it is the 'Jet' Database engine. Just the core code that Access &
>VB uses for DB operation. They call it Jet because it sounds fast.... (G)
>>
>>Tom
>>
>So, in terms of accessing databases, which is faster? Access or VB or VFP?

Alvin

Well since VB & Access have the same database engine (Jet) & they are taking parts of FoxPro to put into Jet with every new release of Jet... Hmmm... Let me think, thats a tough one.... (S) FOXPRO! Yes! (g)

Tom