At 11:34 PM 8/14/2006 -0400, MB Software Solutions wrote:
Because they lose an SQL Server sale presumably.
Now there's possible logic I see, but with the differences between VFP and
client/server....well, it's very different. If you can afford SQL Server
AND NEED SQL Server (for big dog data), so be it. VFP is great, but when
you use SQL Server or MySQL or Oracle or a serious big dog rdbms, you gain
so much more scalability (or at least that's what I bought). Fox tables
are awesome, but there comes a point where there's a limit.
Very true. But a couple other things get thrown in the mix:
1) VFP table limits are such that probably 80%+ of businesses could use
them just fine
2) VFP works so well with other DB backends that MS SQL server loses
its...um.... 'charm'. Especially when considering combining VFP's local
data engine with backend servers.
And remember, MS SQL Server isn't really about making a 'sale' - it's about
making an umbilical chord with endless licensing fees.....
-Charlie
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
