The Upgrade Avalanche

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » SQLServerCentral.com » Editorials » The Upgrade Avalanche

The Upgrade Avalanche

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Monday, June 04, 2012 8:40 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 11:20 AM
Points: 31,437, Visits: 13,752

Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Upgrade Avalanche

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #1310527

chrisn-585491

Posted Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:31 AM

SSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:32 AM
Points: 479, Visits: 1,263

I've yet to met a developer outside of Microsoft that is excited about Windows 8.

Post #1311092

P Jones

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 1:52 AM

Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 20, 2013 7:35 AM
Points: 515, Visits: 1,016

I think there's too many upgrades too soon, especially for both large companies and home users who can't afford to keep upgrading when the old one still works fine, especially in the current financial climate.
At work we're only just upgrading to Windows 7 and IE8 from XP, IE6 and Office 2003 as the upgrade process takes considerable time to get a consistent build tested and then rolled out to 3000 users.
We're still getting the last databases off SQL2000 (due to the DTS to SSIS change and establishing business needs) and onto 2005 or 2008 - we haven't gone 2008R2 due to higher licencing coasts and SQL 2012 isn't even up for consideration!
Microsoft should give us longer between versions and just issue service packs - if it ain't broke why do we need to fix it?

Post #1311647

TravisDBA

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:42 AM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:23 AM
Points: 1,288, Visits: 2,996

[b]Microsoft should give us longer between versions and just issue service packs - if it ain't broke why do we need to fix it?

You don't. But that's not why they are doing it. BigGrin

"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ... BigGrin

Post #1311910

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 8:49 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 11:20 AM
Points: 31,437, Visits: 13,752

P Jones (6/6/2012)

Microsoft should give us longer between versions and just issue service packs - if it ain't broke why do we need to fix it?

A few things here. One is revenue, obviously MS (and all vendors) want to sustain this, so they are looking to make new sales all the time. I'm not sure they're counting on a ton of upgrades, but they are counting on market pressure to push people to upgrade.

The other thing is competition. As Oracle, DB2, etc. change and evolve, MS wants to keep pace and add things to SQL Server to make it competitive. This means more rapid versions.

I'm OK with the 18-24 month cycle for SQL Server, but I don't expect to upgrade any particular server more than every 3 or 4 cycles. That means that I also expect to be supporting 3-4 versions at any one time.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #1311918

Jo Pattyn

Posted Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:18 AM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:30 PM
Points: 1,332, Visits: 4,325

Maybe we will wait until Release 2 comes out. By the time it is well established.

Post #1311993

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Permissions