October 4, 2007 at 12:46 pm
When's 2008 slated to come out?
We're running 2K here, and I've only played *a little* with 2K5. But if 2K8 is close, that means they'll want to go 2K5 soon. As my boss has put it, we never have the latest and greatest out - we're usually slower to update.
Though thankfully we're not like my previous employer, that still had SQL 7.0 in production when I left, with little hopes of ever seeing anything higher than 2K (which they had also had).
October 5, 2007 at 7:48 am
SS2K8 will "launch" in Feb with Windows 2008 and VS2008. However I'm hearing Q2 for the actual bits to RTM. My guess is we'll see the bits at TechEd, first week of June. Supposedly the next CTP (soon) will have all the bits and they'll be in bugfix/tuning mode for the next 6-7 months.
October 5, 2007 at 9:44 am
Although I'd like to go to SQL Server 2008 when it comes out, and I may push for it in our DW project, but for our LOB apps, we've upgraded to SQL 2005 for HR and Finance, and next summer will upgrade our SIS system to SQL 2005. We need to run the version of SQL supported by our vendors.
😎
October 14, 2007 at 7:01 pm
I'm with a financial institution and all of our boxes are still SS2K. The only reason I want to step up is so that we don't get too far behind in the technology stakes (and that my own skills don't get too far behind as well...)
We have a third-party software supplier that wants us to step up to 2K5 because their application runs like a hairy goat and they're telling the executives that it's SS2K. I disagreed and hit the bosses with emails before the official word came down to upgrade that going to 2005 will not make their bad SQL run better and that it would be a bad business decision.
If we were to go to 2005 now, that means an upgrade again maybe Q1 or Q2 of 2009. If we stick with 2000 until near end Q2 of 2008, there should be a service pack out by then (or a heap of fixes as a minimum) and our next upgrade won't need to happen until maybe 2012 if MS keep up this three-year new-version practice that they seem to be on.
Steve has a greater influence than he realises as well. I was going to go to 2005 in Q4 of this year until his article about holding off came out.
I'm still not going to drink the Kool Aid though.... :hehe:
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
October 15, 2007 at 5:50 am
We had to upgrade a db from 2000 to 2005. I just used a restore of one of the 2000 backups to the new box and the db was operational without too much tweaking. Here are a few things to keep in mind.
1. Porting logins/permissions/security can be tricky.
2. I had absolutely no versioning issues with stored procedures, views or tables. They all worked as previously designed. I do recommend running the 2005 converter checkup. (Microsoft download)
3. Although 2000 DSTs can be ported over 2005, the entire etl changed. SS now has two new modules; Integration service and .net Business Intelligence modules handling the ETL and Reporting Services (great features). There is a lot to learn. I bought a book on each to help familiarize myself with the new terminology and their uses, then jumped right in. The 2005 versions have some quirks which 2008 should clean up.
4. A new Enterprise Management interface takes a little getting used to, but has some nice features. You can build stored procedures/views/ad hoc queries without switchiing to other modules like query profiler, or clicking an sp's properties button.
5. We upgraded to v. 2005, so chances are small that we will upgrade to v. 2008. I'll probably be patching until the 2011 version comes out. So no matter what version you use, you'll always be behind in the Microsoft upgrade curve.
In general, if you can design good tables and queries in 2000, you'll be a wiz with 2005. Plus you get a few new tools to play with.
October 15, 2007 at 10:34 am
We upgraded to 2005 in July. Personally I wouldn't count on 2008 to be "Safe" until at least this time next year.
I don't know that I would wait for 2008, if you have a need, upgrade. If you don't consider waiting, however jumping 2 releases is always harder than just going from the last one.
October 15, 2007 at 10:43 am
Skipping two releases is a big deal, but the difference between going SS2000 to SS2008 is not much different than SS2000 to SS2005. Because SS2005 and SS2008 are very similar.
Going from SS7 to SS2005 is much, much different than going from SS7 to SS2000.
October 15, 2007 at 11:16 am
October 15, 2007 at 12:00 pm
What do you mean by everything?
October 15, 2007 at 12:09 pm
October 15, 2007 at 12:22 pm
2 years for most new items to be 64 bit.
This year seems to be the first year that I've seen lots of 64-bit stuff coming out and people actually getting 64-bit laptops. Some haven't, but given that I expect many corporations and serious users will replace some hardware in the next 3 years, I'd expect by the end of 2010 most things will be 64-bit.
Servers are hard. Lots of companies are probably going to replace stuff in the next 3 years, but some won't buy 64-bit this time around, so it might not be overall, but it will be common. Lots of companies, especially smaller ones, will hold onto 32-bit boxes as long as they can.
I could see no more 32-bit being sold in 3 years. Even handhelds 😉
October 15, 2007 at 4:43 pm
How about getting into Sybase\Unix. At my current work ( where most of the servers are Sybase on Unix) I am 'forced' to learn Sybase\Unix at the expense of SS2005\SS2008. So currently I have a Dilema either to stay where I am slowly learn Sybase and Unix ( still have to do a lot of SQL stuff daily) or move to the SQL shop only?! If stay, I could be behind new SQL trends....
October 15, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I haven't seen any job posting for Powerbuilder and Sybase in where I live (update NY). I always look at the job posting in Monster.com, hotjobs.com, this way I have an idea which technology is popular and which technology is going down the hill.
Although I got a call from a recruiter 2 months ago looking for a COBOL programmer, they tried very hard and could not find one. Most of COBOL programmers either changed to do something else or retired.:rolleyes: I told her I could read a COBOL program but it would take me a while to get back to my former life. Maybe I should start learning how to write COBOL again. I always think one of these days some companies will pay anything to find a COBOL programmer.:hehe:
So maybe learning Sybase is not a bad idea.
October 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm
I don't think your way behind. I was in the same boat up until I changed jobs in August. Infact, my previous company were trying to move me to the dark side (Oracle) 😛
However, I've now been using SQL2005 for 2 months and I'm picking up all the new features, syntax, changes etc.
Still, there is lots for me to learn, but like everyone on here, we're all learning about SQL Server every day!
Viewing 14 posts - 16 through 28 (of 28 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply