Microsoft’s SQL Server development team learned a hard lesson from its work on SQL Server 2005: customers do not want to wait five years for an upgrade. From now on, a new development regime called the Software Reengineering Initiative will ensure that releases ship every two years whether new features are ready or not, said Mark Souza, who heads the SRI team.
“whether new features are ready or not,”
Now that truley defines the upgrade treadmill!
“whether new features are ready or not,”
Isn’t that the practises for their other products? (mainly the not part, that is)
by that.
2k5 was a much needed& nice update from 2k but I think id rather wait a little bit longer for a new product & just get updates to the current one than have a unfinished product.
You’re going to need it…
What’s the point?! Let’s package the same thing (plus 10 dozen security updates) every couple of years and call it something new. Hey, why didn’t I think of that!? Oh, how stupid of me (smack forhead loudly with hand), it’s called Vista…
“…customers do not want to wait five years for an upgrade…”</i”
Who are these customers?
[i]…From now on, a new development regime called the Software Reengineering Initiative will ensure that releases ship every two years whether new features are ready or not,…”
Dear Customers,
In order to maintain the flow of billions of dollars into our account, we Microshaft, have innnovated a a clever way (from our point of view) for the cash cows (that means you) to have the incentive to write us that big check every 2 years. We will continue to shaft you with upgrades with probably incomplete-and-maybe-not-ready new features (we know, you didn’t ask for them. Aren’t we nice!).
Thank you for your continued support by keeping upgrade our products.
Power to the people (dream on).
Long live Microshaft!
While the new SQL2k5 engine is noticeably quicker than SQL2k, the new management tools leave a lot to be desired in terms of new features (overall integration is nice, but the functionality is basically the same as the previous version), but more importantly the performance of the management tools (namely Management Studio) is absolutely dreadful and has definitely slowed down productivity on a new project my team is working on…expanding containers with more than a trivial amount of objects seems to take f-o-r-e-v-e-r most of the time.
Does it take them 5 years to ‘learn a hard lesson’???
that is a long time to upgrade a software. blame it on themselves if they lose market share and become less competitive.
I don’t know why everyone is so anti Microsoft on this issue. This is the same way the GNOME project releases. Also the Linux Kernel and Ubuntu. It seemed like a great idea until Microsoft decided to do it…
The difference between GNOME/Linux Kernel/Ubuntu/etc. and Microsoft upgrades every two years or so is that the customers don’t have to pay for these upgrades and don’t have to do upgrades if they don’t want to. However, they all have options to either performing the upgrades themselves or if they choose to, they can have someone do it for them for a reasonable fee. Why? The source codes for GNOME/Linux Kernel/Ubuntu/etc. are freely available for anyone to tinker.
Microsoft, on the the hand…