>Just one simple question Kevin.
>
>Are DBF really that bad?
>
>That's actually NOT a simple question. I don't know what in my message to Jim would lead you to ask that. "that bad" is difficult to quantify/qualify.
>
>What I will say is that SQL Server is generally superior to Fox as a back-end data source. It doesn't mean the DBF is "bad", it just means SQL Server is a better recommendation.

I have no qualms at all with a statement like that. It at least doesn't strongly imply that DBFs are poor at reliability AND that SQL Server is 100% reliable.


>
>Kevin