Submitted by “Microsoft has a problem. Vista, its long-awaited update to the Windows operating system, can’t run the current version of SQL Server. The company is working on a SQL upgrade that is compatible with Vista – called SQL Server 2005 Express Service Pack 2 – but it’s in beta and can be licensed only for testing purposes. Microsoft hasn’t set a release date for the new SQL program. So companies looking to install Vista, which went on sale to corporate customers Nov. 30, are going to have to get their database management software someplace else.”
I don’t think I’d want to put a critical DB on a brand new OS to begin with.
You’re absolutely correct: it doesn’t matter which OS and how it was created and by whom, either, or whether it’s proprietary or not: this is just wise business practices to test things out first before deploying a system where it matters.
I don’t think I’d want to put a critical DB on a brand new OS to begin with.
MSDE/SQL 2005 Express is not meant for storing critical data; it’s rather MS Access DB engine replacement (much better one, btw).
MSDE is used widely – many applications include this engine to store internal databases (previously they used MSJet DB engine, aka MS Access). Newer versions of these apps may use SQL2005 Express – but if the latest won’t run on Vista, then apps won’t run either.
And of course I want to use my apps on a brand new OS (or at least check, are they Vista compatible).
No matter what OS it is and how much you beta test once you let it out into the world you are going to find things that just don’t work right.
I agree that you never run anything approaching mission critical status on a brand new OS.
Always wait for at least the the .1 release.
Yeah…but it’s still pretty funny.
Isn’t Vista a desktop OS?
I mean the server version of Windows is like Windows 2007 1337k6 Ultimate Premium Edition.
Why would this “haunt” Microsoft? The millions of soon-to-be Vista users crying out in horror about how they can’t test DB functionality locally?
Edited 2006-12-17 00:33
Vista will also be used on developer workstations. For example our department received Business edition licenses for development purposes.
However it currently has major problems for developers:
* Visual Studio 2005 is not fully compatible, and an update to VS 2005 SP1 (which also isn’t available for public) will be released to fix this
* PowerShell does not have an installer. There are guides on the web how to install it in an unsupported way (it works, however the procedure is complex)
* Now SQL server is included to the list
If we also think that IIS 7 is not completely backward compatible, I guess we’ll have hard time with Vista until 2007 Q1, by when they promised to release patches to fix all those problems.
(Nevertheless Vista is a nice upgrade from XP, and personally I’m still using it on my Windows machines).
i dont suppose they mind THAT much, first noone is going to transfer their database to a brand new os and second things like sql are more in the relm of their server os offerings, which isnt even out yet!
That is what I was thinking too. Vista is a desktop OS so why exactly these people would want to put SQL Server on it is a bit of a mystery. I can understand the rare case for it to be configured that way, but Vista is brand new so they should have an old test box laying around with SQL Server working just fine on it.
“That is what I was thinking too. Vista is a desktop OS so why exactly these people would want to put SQL Server on it is a bit of a mystery. I can understand the rare case for it to be configured that way, but Vista is brand new so they should have an old test box laying around with SQL Server working just fine on it.”
From the article:
“(Before any more of you fire off an outraged e-mail informing me that Vista doesn’t run SQL Server, go back and read the above paragraphs again: I’m talking about SQL Server 2005 Express, which is the desktop counterpart of SQL Server – not the server version.)”
It’s what users do.
You shouldn’t move a critical DB over to a brand-new OS. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
However, I disagree that Vista is supposed to be a Desktop OS only. It seems to me that it’s also being marketed as a server OS (especially the high-end versions such as Ultimate).
However, I disagree that Vista is supposed to be a Desktop OS only. It seems to me that it’s also being marketed as a server OS (especially the high-end versions such as Ultimate).
No, wrong. It’s a desktop OS and that’s precisely how it’s being marketed. Read the Wiki (or any MS marketing materials) and tell me where it says that its a server OS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista
My bad, that was the impression I had gotten in another thread.
That said, Vista Business does include IIS…
BTW, good job on not insulting me on that post. You only sounded a little bit aggressive…is it the Christmas Spirit that’s getting to you? 🙂
That said, Vista Business does include IIS…
XP has included IIS for a while now (as did 2k Pro, IIRC) – but it has a limit of something like 5 concurrent connections. So it’s not really useful for anything other than testing, although I’m not sure if IIS in Vista has the same limitation.
even worse: it’s only 2 connections. Haven’t tried IIS7 on vista yet.
You’re both wrong (kinda): It’s 10 connections, but seeing as 1 client connection actually opens up 2 connections under the hood, it’s 5 concurrent clients:
http://www.iis-resources.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7…
There are IIS metabase hacks to remove this constraint though. This will be removed in Vista in exchange for a throttling based system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Information_Server#History
Why do you think I qualified with “something like”? Because I was too lazy to look up the specifics, that’s why
Aggressive? Me? LMAO! Yeah, well, a leopard can’t change its spots… 😉
Merry Christmas, archie.
`You shouldn’t move a critical DB over to a brand-new OS. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!`
I work with Oracle on a daily basis and would have to agree with you. But there are `IT Pros` out there who believe in the `PC Mentality` as defined by McSoft who must upgrade with the latest and greatest.
As for me, I will stick with Linux, BSD and OSX.
Hmmm. I don’t think I’ve ever heard MS market Vista as a server. They want to sell 2003 Server, after all.
MS has committed enough *actual* FUBARs that one wonders why the author of the article would feel the need to reach this far to find something.
At any rate, if one *does* want to put a heavy duty RDBMS on Vista, I imagine that PostgreSQL runs just fine.
but it’s STILL funny!
Even the corresponding digg.com thread is trashing this article, and digg’s “community” is none-to-friendly to Microsoft.
And even a substantial percentage of posts on slashdot are knocking this down, like this post by ThinkFr33ly:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212170&cid=17269200
FUD at its best
First of all, the title of the post (and the article’s title) are misleading. “SQL Server” (suggesting its full fledged version) was NEVER compatible with Vista, or XP for that matter. It’s meant for servers, not desktops.
Second, Vista is NOT RELEASED YET. Despite that, early adopters can download SQL Server Express SP1, which runs fine on Vista, although it is not technically “supported” by Microsoft. In fact, almost all of the issues are easily worked around by running the setup as admin, and SQL Server Management Studio as admin.
For those people who have additional problems, there is plenty of good documentation ( http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlexpress/archive/2006/10/11/getting-things-… ) [msdn.com] on how to get it running, or they can install the beta of SP2, which should be RTM by the time Vista hits the shelves in the end of Jan anyway.
So despite the author’s obvious attempts at a sensational title that would get him lots of hits (and, evidentially, posted on Slashdot), his content is almost pure FUD… and pure gold for Slashdot.
This is SQL Server Express that’s mentioned in the article, which is the new name for MSDE v2.0 however it removes several restrictions imposed by the former version:
– No 2GB database size limit (upped to 4gb)
– No governor that kicks in after 8 concurrent connections
– Free to use in any scenario (i.e. no restrictions on commercial use)
SQL Express is meant to be embedded in client side applications to be used as a local lightweight RDBMS, for example let’s say ACME Inc writes a custom app for its mobile sales force, all armed with laptops. When they are out on the road making sales, they run the client app same as they would if they were connected to the corporate LAN, but instead of hitting a central SQL Server, it uses the locally installed Express db. App devs could then write code that transfers the local copy of the data back to the central db once the client machine plugs back into the LAN without much extra coding overhead needed such as using MSMQ, or parsing XML files, etc.
It can also be used in shared scenarios where enterprise features (such as clustering, failover, replication, etc) aren’t needed, such as web hosting.
If you are a developer and you cannot test MSDE or SQL express you are screwed. You have to wait for Microsoft to release teh fix.
Everyone here is complaining about Vista not being a server OS, You would be correct. But we are not talking about SQL server. We are talking about the version of SQL that developers use to test with. If we cant test, we cant deploy the product or plan to deploy a product that needs a database backend (like certain backup software). If we cant deploy the product We loose money as does MS. It’s stupid. How come IBM can get DB2-express to work on it but MS cant get it SQL/MSDE to work with their own OS. It’s just plain stupid.
Of course MS SQL express needs to run on Vista – as an ’embedded’ DB for applications as well as for testing purposes by developers.
Add to this the fact that the Zune won’t work with Vista and Visual Studio 2005 won’t either. To me this shows that MS have lost control of their code.
Beta versions of SP’s to get an existing database/IDE to work on your new OS? And your ipod ‘killer’ won’t even work with your operating system. What kind of software is this?
Can you imagine Apple releasing OS X Iguana and saying – oh, BTW, it won’t work with ipods!
BTW – I’ve recently tested Debian Etch (which is a new version of a Linux Distro) and can tell you that *every single* application, database, web server, email server etc etc etc which worked with the previous version (Sarge) works with this new version.
And this is also released for 11 architectures – MS are only releasing for the x86!
Seems that if you want a large suite of operating systems, server applications, IDE’s and programming languages to work together then the FLOSS development model works – the proprietary model is doomed to failure as if MS with all their vast resources can’t get it to work then there must be something fundementally wrong.
Add to this the fact that the Zune won’t work with Vista and Visual Studio 2005 won’t either. To me this shows that MS have lost control of their code.
Visual Studio does work on Vista. There are some items that require elevation to work correctly. Zune is a consumer product and Vista will not be available to consumers until the end of January.
<quote>
Visual Studio does work on Vista. There are some items that require elevation to work correctly.
</quote>
So it doesn’t work fully then. Of course if your happy with stuff that doesn’t work fully then stay in the MS world. The rest of us need systems which are 100%.
<quote>
Zune is a consumer product and Vista will not be available to consumers until the end of January.
</quote>
Ok, we’ll see if Vista will support the Zune in 5 weeks time. If not, then why not realise how bad things have become at MS and get yourself a Mac.
Of course, if you prefer things which don’t work 100% or incoompatible products from the same company then carry on as you are.
I love how up in arms everyone is about people running SQL Server on a “desktop OS” when a large number of “desktop Linux” users are also running a SQL server. I don’t think there is anything wrong with running SQL Server on Vista, think of the developers.
But it’s still funny
After installing Vista last week one of the first things I went to install was Exchange 2003 System Manager only to find out this isn’t compatible. Also, Active Directory Users and Computers didn’t work until I manually registered a load of dlls.
After a quick look it appears that in order to manage exchange from Vista I need to upgrade my company to exchange 2007 – where did I put my xp cd?
I know I can rdp onto a server etc but still thought this incompatibility pretty shocking and suprised nobody else has made a fuss about this.
So MS have *one* database (lets forget Access for anything serious) and it doesn’t work with Vista.
MS have *one* email server (Exchange) and its system manager doesn’t work with Vista.
MS have *one* IDE (VSS – not sure what’s happened to Foxpro) and it doesn’t work with Vista.
MS have *one* MP3 player and it doesn’t work with Vista. (Has anyone checked the mice?).
Compare this to Debian which has ‘over 15490 packages’ and they *all* work with the new version (Etch).
This includes about 20 databases, 20 web servers, 20 email servers, dozens of languages, editors, IDE’s, etc etc etc.
It seems to me that MS have something fundementally wrong somewhere and this would indicate that more incompatibilies will be found.
Also, if something like SQL Server Express won’t work with Vista what does that say about SQL Server on Win2007?
Tim Holwerdi
Hi, My name is Tim Holwerdi.
I am gonna tell you my last dream…
I am an Aszzhole in search of Notoriety…
I work in a Website that offers news of IT and Open Source.
I pretend that I do it for the sake of love for IT, but the fact is that, I am expecting good revenues for the
future…
If not, why should I loose my time looking for IT news in other IT Web Sites that offer what I am not able to
offer… for the sake of these IT weirdos geeks and Open source-free computing fanboys…? c’mon…
I think I know more than the rest, of course… and I am always right!
Yes, I know more than anyone of you about Computers, and about anything else you can imagine! even If many people prove me the contrary, I am still right…
Me and my Mac go together everywhere, I even sleep with it, which is somehow problematic, cause as you can imagine, is not easy to have sexual relations tru an USB port, or a FireWire one… but I am in love anyway!…
Anything that is not Mac or commercial, is just wacko rubbish!
And, of course, is not going to offer me anything, because all these Open Source weirdos have no future, and are not gonna advertise in my site, or pay me money… I dont even talk about the FSF retarded hippies!
At best the big companies that now move to Linux, and pretend to be Open Source, worth a little bit, and may be a source of revenues in the future if the have some sucess…
Cheers…
P.S. Apple Rocks… Linux sucks… (MS is very good also, cause they have plenty of money, and are the pattern of our great western Businnes Economic and social system…)