[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.....
Good point...I was speaking from the employee side where someone else
was paying those fees. You make good and valid points though (as usual)!
--
Thanks,
--Michael
_______________________________________________
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.
