Hi Walter,

I don't want to get into an argument about whether ADO.NET is a "database engine". But I would say that anyone that offers up an opinion about which is better should really have had hands-on experience with both alternatives.

I've found that there is nothing I can't do in .NET/SQL Server - or for that matter VB6/SQL Server that can't be done in Fox. Of course, the methods to accomplish the same task will vary significantly - but the same thing can be done - one way or another - using any of these languages/database platforms.

I use DataTables quite a bit in my .NET apps - I don't see any real difference between using a DataTable or a Fox cursor - since all my updates are done via Stored Procedures anyway.

Everyone should just use the tool they prefer and can make a living with(kind of important) - I'm glad that I put forth the effort to learn VB6, SQL Server and .NET over the past four years - otherwise I'd be out of work ... If you are making a good living with Fox - all the power to you.

Fox just doesn't sell in these parts - regardless of how powerful a tool it is... And the more I became familiar with VB6 and .NET - I actually prefered (and still prefer) using these developlent tools over Fox.

Al

>
>By its definition ADO.NET is not a database engine. It misses characteristics needed for it to be that. It is all at MSDN. No practical experience needed here. The specifications do just not fit the bill. There is no need to discuss this over and over again. I've made my standpoint clear.
>
>Walter,