Well, Houston, I've made the mistake of replying to a question without the benefit of actually having benchmarked it myself. <g> Obviously, different circumstances and different kinds of applications naturally dictate different solutions. I've been using SQL Server for 4 years (first with a VFP application and now with a .NET application) and maybe I'm just biased towards it. <g>

So while performance differences may or may not be an issue, I'd say that scalability and security are issues that SQL will handle better than VFP. Is that a better answer? <g>

~~Bonnie



>>Mike,
>>
>>What do you consider "being equal"? As Keith said, the only way you can give equal footing to VFP vs MSSQL is in a single-user scenario ... and I doubt if you meant that. What would be the purpose of using SQL Server with a desktop application? (that's a rhetorical question, BTW <g>)
>>
>>So, if you're talking about a client/server application with the database on a server (VFP on a file server), then SQL will out-perform VFP, no question.
>
>Hi Bonnie, regarding "then SQL will out-perform VFP, no question", I tend to agree with Rick Strahl's assessment, specifically the section titled "To SQL or Not To SQL". There is a heavy performance price to pay for all that ACID, replication, clustered server option, etc.! And when moving from local VFP to LAN based VFP, I've not noticed a performance problem that cannot be addressed by either 100 MHz ethernet or the now more compelling Gigabit ethernet.
>
>Update: The UT is hosing the link above so here it is on its on:
>
>http://www.west-wind.com/presentations/largeweb/