|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 7:43 PM
Points: 2,174,
Visits: 3,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Veteran
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:14 AM
Points: 291,
Visits: 1,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Fame
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:30 AM
Points: 3,192,
Visits: 4,151
|
|
most of us are still working on older, SQL Server 2000 servers Are there any statistics on this?!
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Eights!
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:59 AM
Points: 981,
Visits: 823
|
|
As a freelancer most of the sites I work at are still extensively 2000, with a few 2005 servers. Almost all the businesses I've worked with are still only just considering converting to SQL 2008, as the general consensus among big business (and especially local government) in the UK seems to be "if it works, leave it alone".
So from personal experience I would say 2000 use is still extensive.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:11 AM
Points: 2,
Visits: 41
|
|
| Nice workaround, if you do have SQL 2005 indeed. Thus, why not to migrate your SQL 2000 dbs to SQL 2005?
|
|
|
|
|
SSC Eights!
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:59 AM
Points: 981,
Visits: 823
|
|
myxdev-apps (3/9/2010) Thus, why not to migrate your SQL 2000 dbs to SQL 2005?
Lots of reasons. The business may not see a requirement to migrate the database, there may be elements that won't convert easily, they may not sanction the development time to re-write stored procs or convert hundreds of DTS packages. I've run into all these and more as reasons why companies don't migrate databases.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Newbie
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, March 31, 2013 5:11 AM
Points: 2,
Visits: 41
|
|
Andeavour (3/9/2010)
myxdev-apps (3/9/2010) Thus, why not to migrate your SQL 2000 dbs to SQL 2005?Lots of reasons.
Yes. I was wondering about the article, not your post, but the other side, those small companies thata can't afford a new SQL Server.
I agree with you that many companies won't upgrade their SQL 2000 for all it implies to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Grasshopper
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 5:11 AM
Points: 10,
Visits: 149
|
|
From the article: It might take a few more years before all of the existing SQL Server 2000 applications are upgraded to newer versions of SQL Server.
SQL 2000 SP4 drops out of the extended support phase in April 2013. After that MS won't be doing any security patches, so security holes won't get fixed and your enterprise is at risk. So you need to be planning on upgrading within the next 36 months. http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2852
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Enthusiastic
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 7:09 AM
Points: 111,
Visits: 116
|
|
RE : SQL 2000. I've been telling a client for more than 6 months that they should upgrade their server and move to at least SQL 2005. This week the 10 year old hardware failed. they are now upgrading by default 
Developer, DBA, Pre-Sales consultant. Occasional Blog writer
http://rstebbens.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Addicted
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:15 PM
Points: 471,
Visits: 485
|
|
I still have to support a SQL 2000 instance for a vendor application that the business can't afford to upgrade at the moment. The new version of the software is a hosted system and very expensive. The current version does not support any SQL beyond 2000.
I don't find configuring SQL Mail on SQL 2000 to be very difficult, but it's nice to know there are options.
Aigle de Guerre!
|
|
|
|