>I never did use VFP3. Ooof, what a mess. But according to the article (enclosed below) which you refered me to, it's not a problem with VFP5. So I stick to my guns about strategy, unless you are running VFP3.0 and can't decide what file servers will be used. I can see how you couldn't ask 70 sites to switch to NT, though. But since the problem only occurs when the table is located "on a Windows 95 machine," maybe the solution is to updgrade to VFP5 instead.
>

Like I said, this was a problem in the past -- long since resolved .....when VFP3 was all there was. But I gotta stick to my guns too ;-) I just won't use sequential values as a primary or unique key. Now, if VFP ever implemented a self-managed auto-increment field....