I won't argue about "a (more) robust backend" except to say that if that was the reason E C chose MySQL then that should have been the reason stated. As it was all he said was 'I had memo trouble so I switched', which is why I wrote what I wrote.

Now if the VFP Team would only deliver a client-server version...

cheers

>I wouldn't go as far as to say "extremely reliable" Jim. Have you ever experienced a corrupt SCX or VCX file? If no, you're lucky because I've had a couple of these.
>
>To get back to the original post, memo field may be more vulnerable that other field type because they are stored in a separated file. It could become corrupted because of loss of power, crash, not copied/restored with the DBF, etc.
>
>But I doubt that this issue with the memo field alone would make an impact on which backend to use. If the application need a robust backend that is not subject to corruption, VFP tables are not the solution IMHO.
>
>>I've found, and do keep in mind that VFP itself uses memo fields way more than most average applications, that they are extremely reliable and that their "bad reputation" is undeserved.