At 09:23 AM 7/22/2007 -0500, Stephen the Cook wrote: > > What the heck kind of answer is that? Do you even have a clue as to > > how many records he's dealing with? Perhaps not enough to warrant > > SQL Server! I'm sure you were kidding with that one....(right?). > > imo, his problem doesn't sound anything like it has to do with the > > backend being VFP. > >He said that FP was not SAVING his data. What kind of shit so you put up >with anyway? If I say save the data it gets saved. DB2, Informix, SQL
... I have NEVER had a problem with VFP saving data. I know exactly what is going on with the tables and records. Of course, I NEVER use Views with VFP data (sometimes I've used 'em with accessing SQL Data). With Views, you lose a lot of control over what is happening. But then, that is precisely what MS wants - you lose control - so Views are their "recommended" approach. I've had tons more problems getting SQL Server to "store" data than I ever have with VFP. So, apparently, YMMV. -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 Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** 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.
