October 28, 2008 at 10:59 am
I have one 2005 server (for two users!), everything else is 2000. I want to upgrade to 2005 for one reason: memory. I have multiple instances running a single database on boxes competing for 640m-2gig ram, and it sucks. I think I have management beginning to follow that multiple databases running on a single instance equals better system-managed resources and more efficient systems.
The additional T-SQL capability is appealing, but not critical. For me, the most interesting additions to the language is the pivot table support for reporting, crude though it may be in 2005, and I can do pivots just fine in Crystal and Access. SQL 2008 is appealing to me for two things: spatial data types (we have GIS) and date and time datatypes, otherwise I'm not in a hurry. But new features isn't a huge deal as we do almost zero DB development, we buy pretty much all of our systems from vendors.
I don't believe in upgrading just for the sake of it, but there are some major technology improvements between 2000 and 2005, less so from 2005 to 2008 from what I've seen. That changes the reevaluation need. I'm a semi-firm believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but as in so many things, "it depends".
I would like to see MS extend support for servers, but at the same time their canceling support gives my argument to upgrade some systems more weight.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
October 28, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Wayne West (10/28/2008)
IceDread (10/28/2008)
... Btw, "A community of more than 922,000 database professionals and growing", are we really that many? I wonder how that figure of 922k got there, how many old peeps regging new account that are counted several times and those who has not logged in for longer periods of time, are they a part of our community? ...I'd like to see what the number of users who've posted in the last year is. But that's just me. I think it'd be a more relevant number, but the number of those who browse but not post is still huge. The growth numbers would also be interesting to know: will we have more than a million registered users by the end of the year?
Yeah.
All thou, I remember not long about that the user amount was written to 500k and it seams it must have grown extremely fast over the last half year or year.
Many interesting comments in the thread btw 🙂
October 28, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Wayne West (10/28/2008)
I'd like to see what the number of users who've posted in the last year is. But that's just me.
I'd hazard a guess that most of those people registered for the newsletter mostly and maybe to browse the forums. I think the number actively posting is a small fraction of that
The growth numbers would also be interesting to know: will we have more than a million registered users by the end of the year?
Gonna need a real big party when we hit a million!
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
October 28, 2008 at 1:39 pm
GilaMonster (10/28/2008)
Wayne West (10/28/2008)
...The growth numbers would also be interesting to know: will we have more than a million registered users by the end of the year?Gonna need a real big party when we hit a million!
Well, a lot of us are going to be at PASS, maybe it'll be a pre-million party? :hehe:
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
October 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Since i won't be there, i give the first respondent to this message permission to do my share of the partying (it's a pretty big share, so be certain).
😉
October 29, 2008 at 7:12 am
Interesting question. Posters in the last year is about 20k, not a lot. But that's the nature of the Internet. Most people lurk or read and don't participate. I've got quite a few friends, including my wife, that read and never post. I see people all the time asking me a question that have never posted. Kind of amazing.
It's a thumbnail measure of the popularity of the site, not an accurate count of people that gather here every day. We get new posters all the time, plenty of long time/first time people that decide to participate. Still having a million people type an email in the registration box is pretty cool.
October 29, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hey, Phil. Do you do those every five year service calls for FREE? I'll bet not...
😀
Ancient SQL Server versions are supported longer than ten years, if you're willing to pay for the ongoing support, but even then only for security fixes. From what I've heard from customers, though, most people want SQL Server 2000 plus all the engineering that they care about which went into future versions...
We're already giving away 10 years of lifecycle support for FREE, but developers cost money. Even the ones producing QFEs and regular CUs. Just like your consulting time for your low-maintenance customer.
😉
Pop quiz: would you rather that Microsoft adopt a pay-for-security-patches model like Oracle and keep ancient versions around longer?
October 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Yep, would prefer pay for service, give us more time, reasonable prices.
We don't get 10 years, we get 7, then pay for support (beyond security patches). Not that security isn't important, but most of the security issues are found early.
Actually I'd like to see MS license out the code and get some third party support people that would see a business model. there are people that would want to support (and perhaps incrementally improve) older versions.
October 29, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yep, would prefer pay for service, give us more time, reasonable prices.
Not me. If I am leaving an application on an old version, it is because I don't want to maintain it. If I wanted to maintain it I would migrate it. If the design of the system makes a migration prohibitive, it was probably designed poorly, IMHO.
Actually I'd like to see MS license out the code and get some third party support people that would see a business model. there are people that would want to support (and perhaps incrementally improve) older versions.
I agree, but I can't imagine why MS would provide an upgrade path that pushes customers further away from their products.
October 29, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Steve Jones - Editor (10/29/2008)
Yep, would prefer pay for service, give us more time, reasonable prices.
Define reasonable. Define license model. Define compliance methodology. Marketing will require massive amounts of data demonstrating the upside to justify a change in business model. 😀
Now a subscription model might have some legs... Oh, hey, there's a shiny cloud.
We don't get 10 years, we get 7, then pay for support (beyond security patches). Not that security isn't important, but most of the security issues are found early.
And? What sort of support (besides security fixes) would be required after a seven year window? Surely you're not talking about development support? Benefits of future engineering that went into future versions? The ink on documentation dries after about a year or three, at most.
People don't even keep their cars that long, and a typical SQL Server Standard edition isn't even as expensive as a typical car. The guy who sold me the Sequoia told me that Toyota was betting (with their base model warranty) that I won't even keep it that long. Sales data says that people keep their cars three years.
I'm sure marketing has data on how long people keep their SQL Servers, too. I know of customers still running heart monitoring equipment on 6.1 and 6.5, but only because they're so risk averse that they might consider paying $X billion for the source code just to avoid ever having to upgrade.
Actually I'd like to see MS license out the code and get some third party support people that would see a business model. there are people that would want to support (and perhaps incrementally improve) older versions.
Why license it out when that's exactly what we're doing with the SQL Server codebase? The most recent radical, across-the-box reengineering effort was guess when? 😉
In unrelated news, I attended a fundamentals presentation by the performance engineering team (among others today) and examples were given of baseline performance comparisons of all-up performance test libraries dating back before 2000.
FWIW, I think you might want to distinguish between engines and tools here, too. I'm just sayin'.
October 30, 2008 at 3:03 am
Steve Jones - Editor (10/29/2008)
Interesting question. Posters in the last year is about 20k, not a lot. But that's the nature of the Internet. Most people lurk or read and don't participate. I've got quite a few friends, including my wife, that read and never post. I see people all the time asking me a question that have never posted. Kind of amazing.It's a thumbnail measure of the popularity of the site, not an accurate count of people that gather here every day. We get new posters all the time, plenty of long time/first time people that decide to participate. Still having a million people type an email in the registration box is pretty cool.
20k posters I'd say are at least not a small amount! And thanks for the info. How to measure and for what purpose is tricky. It's also nice to see the person, you, who write the editorial to participate so much in talk that comes after it. Thinking about it, it would be something to see in ordinary news sites as well from the one's writing reports etc!
October 30, 2008 at 3:24 am
Hey, Phil. Do you do those every five year service calls for FREE? I'll bet not...
[p]David,[/p]
[p]Yes, I do them for free. [/p]
[p]...and your analogy with cars and suchlike won't wash either. I have a 1958 Massey Ferguson Tractor that works as well as the day I bought it, and it works hard too. When something breaks, I can get spares. I've got all the bits that go with it too, even a 1958 trailer. Although it is old enough to be a 'heritage item' (I'm even older, sadly), and thereby tax exempt (Hmm.. idea there) it does the same work just as well as it did when it first came out of the factory. Even my cars are so old that they're likely to escape a proposed UK 'carbon gas-guzzlers tax'. [/p]
[p]I'd be crazy to 'upgrade' them. Daft![/p]
Best wishes,
Phil Factor
October 30, 2008 at 3:45 am
Phil Factor (10/30/2008)
Hey, Phil. Do you do those every five year service calls for FREE? I'll bet not...
[p]David,[/p]
[p]Yes, I do them for free. [/p]
[p]...and your analogy with cars and suchlike won't wash either. I have a 1958 Massey Ferguson Tractor that works as well as the day I bought it, and it works hard too. When something breaks, I can get spares. I've got all the bits that go with it too, even a 1958 trailer. Although it is old enough to be a 'heritage item' (I'm even older, sadly), and thereby tax exempt (Hmm.. idea there) it does the same work just as well as it did when it first came out of the factory. Even my cars are so old that they're likely to escape a proposed UK 'carbon gas-guzzlers tax'. [/p]
Something else to remember, too, is that, although Cugnot's steam wagon of 1769 might have a few "issues", the roads we have currently are otherwise pretty much completely "backwardly compatible" with all traffic designed for previous "versions".
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
October 30, 2008 at 7:30 am
Good points and I'm not sure how I'd define things. I think MS has the best support, and perhaps it's a non issue. Seems like lots of people are stilling running 2000 without extended support. Do they need more? Not sure.
I'm thinking of some applications, SAP, JDE, Oracle, where the code is licensed and third parties can make incremental changes that need to be done. Are there things broken in 2000? Sure. Should they be fixed? not sure? Might be enough that some company wants to tackle that.
MS does improve the code base, but you also make large changes. Changes designed to make the new version more appealing and salable. There are plenty of people that just want support in case something breaks, or they want some small incremental changes, maybe tools, maybe something else. But a small changes.
October 30, 2008 at 7:51 am
While talking about broken things in ms sql server.
I find that it's sort of weird that the MAX and MIN does not use your indexes, but if you write distinct MAX then they do, like if there would be a difference in the result if you use distinct max vs only max. Things like that should be fixed in all versions I'd say. But well yeah, I want the perfect product every time I look at what a license costs, at least no bugs in such an important and expensive product.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 46 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply