Why do people hate vista?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    I really don't see why MS gets a pass on this from everyone.  
     

    Is this the first time you have seen marketing make false claims and lead customers down the wrong path?

     

    No, but someone specifically complained about using Vista on a laptop with ~512 MB of RAM.  He blamed the hardware vendors.  I am simply pointing out, that in this case, Microsoft must share some of the blame.  If we were discussing Apple, Dell, etc. I would not hesitate to point out their own egregious marketing BS.

    Just because everyone lies and misleads, doesn't make it okay.  And customers should definitely not stand for it. 



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Just because everyone lies and misleads, doesn't make it okay.  And customers should definitely not stand for it. 
     

    I agree MS was wrong for this, but also that just about everyone does it as well.

    But on the same token the same person complaining about running Vista on 512mb admits that the computer scored a 1.0 on the Vista test. So I agree marketing sucks (who doesn't) but this really shouldn't have been too much of a surprise in this case.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @CodeSimian said:

    I really don't see why MS gets a pass on this from everyone.  
     

    Is this the first time you have seen marketing make false claims and lead customers down the wrong path?

    Why should seeing it a thousand times make it any better the thousand-and-first(?) time?


  • @bstorer said:

    Why should seeing it a thousand times make it any better the thousand-and-first(?) time?
     

    Not sure, but I know the 1002th time is always fine.

    Strange, eh?



  • @KenW said:


    @zzo38 said:


    Apparently there is some hidden blocked software list, that it refuses to run any software from that list.

    Says who? What software? I haven't had anything that it "refuses to run".

     

    Says Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/faq-sql_on_vista.mspx

    I was able to install the developer tools from the dev cd after ignoring the compatibility warnings, but didn't try installing the actual server and a full version of SQL 2K, plain refused to run.  

    Considering this was made by MS, I would expect a fix to make it run under Vista.  We plopped out a lot of money for SQL 2K back in the day, and there is no upgrade path (as with all MS Server software).  So now I plain can't use SQL 2K on my desktop?  I guess MS devs are the idiots who couldn't program the software properly?


  •  @russ0519 said:

    I was able to install the developer tools from the dev cd after ignoring the compatibility warnings, but didn't try installing the actual server and a full version of SQL 2K, plain refused to run.  

    Considering this was made by MS, I would expect a fix to make it run under Vista.  We plopped out a lot of money for SQL 2K back in the day, and there is no upgrade path (as with all MS Server software).  So now I plain can't use SQL 2K on my desktop?  I guess MS devs are the idiots who couldn't program the software properly?

    Run it on a SERVER.If all else fails, that is what VMs are for.

    You could probably make it run if you turn off UAC. But I can't imagine why you would actually want to install SQL Server 2000 in the first place on a desktop machine. Go grab a copy of SQL Server 2005 Express or whatever it is being called right now.

    You are whining about support for a product that is ~8 years old now. Get over it, move on. No huge software company would be stupid enough to support products forever.



  • Why would you want to run SQL Server 2000 anyway?

    Its like old folks who have a computer: I have Windows 98 but it is not supported by new hardware, however I want to keep using Win98 because I have paid for it.

    SQL Server 2000 is at the end of its support lifecycle, so why keep using it? Would it hurt that much to upgrade to 2005?

    Would you use a car that has no more parts available for it? What would you do if it breaks down?

    When you buy software you'd probably want to write it off each year so that in 5 years you can buy the new version of that software.

     



  • @Ice^^Heat said:

    Why would you want to run SQL Server 2000 anyway?

    Its like old folks who have a computer: I have Windows 98 but it is not supported by new hardware, however I want to keep using Win98 because I have paid for it.

    SQL Server 2000 is at the end of its support lifecycle, so why keep using it? Would it hurt that much to upgrade to 2005?

    Would you use a car that has no more parts available for it? What would you do if it breaks down?

    When you buy software you'd probably want to write it off each year so that in 5 years you can buy the new version of that software.

     

     

     

    Do you have $11k to drop for SQL 2k5?  And another $11k when SQL 2k8 comes out (or whatever maintanence costs)?  

    For a small business $11k is a nice chunk of change.  What about the time that we'll have to put in to upgrade our installations and to make sure that our existing code works with SQL 2k5?  I mean theoretically it should work, but it still needs to be tested.  That's already $15-$20k lost.  

    I would rather spend the time converting our app to MySQL or something.   It's inexcusable for MS to not support SQL 2K.  They should just come out with a service pack that supports it, since they're obviously not going to give out free upgrades.



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

     @russ0519 said:

    I was able to install the developer tools from the dev cd after ignoring the compatibility warnings, but didn't try installing the actual server and a full version of SQL 2K, plain refused to run.  

    Considering this was made by MS, I would expect a fix to make it run under Vista.  We plopped out a lot of money for SQL 2K back in the day, and there is no upgrade path (as with all MS Server software).  So now I plain can't use SQL 2K on my desktop?  I guess MS devs are the idiots who couldn't program the software properly?

    Run it on a SERVER.If all else fails, that is what VMs are for.

    You could probably make it run if you turn off UAC. But I can't imagine why you would actually want to install SQL Server 2000 in the first place on a desktop machine. Go grab a copy of SQL Server 2005 Express or whatever it is being called right now.

    You are whining about support for a product that is ~8 years old now. Get over it, move on. No huge software company would be stupid enough to support products forever.

    Server 2k8 doesn't support it either.  I can run it in a VM, but that would require an additional license for XP or 2k Server, as well as an extra 512MB of ram for the OS. 

    I already have UAC turned off.  SQL Express is great and all, but it's useless as my production machines are SQL 2K, so I would want my dev box to also run SQL 2K.   

    Yea, it's 8 years old, but SQL 2k5 is only 2.5 years old, which barely give people enough time to upgrade, most orgs would wait for at least SP1, which was 2 years ago.

    Then there's the cost.  It would cost us 11k to upgrade a single 2k server, and like I said, it's not chump change to a small business, especially when we don't need any extra features of SQL 2k5.     



  • @russ0519 said:

    Do you have $11k to drop for SQL 2k5?
     

    There is a free version for you to get started with and develop against.

    @russ0519 said:

    For a small business $11k is a nice chunk of change. 

    Yes it is, and completely worth it to stay on a supported platform.

    @russ0519 said:

    What about the time that we'll have to put in to upgrade our installations and to make sure that our existing code works with SQL 2k5? 

    Price of doing business. This kind of thing should be budgeted in. Are you telling me that in the last 8 years no one in your company has figured out that they will need to upgrade crucial business software?

    @russ0519 said:

    I mean theoretically it should work, but it still needs to be tested. 

    Yes it should. And there will be plenty of changes and time spent. You had many years to start getting prepared for this. SQL server 2005 and now SQL server 2008. Is no one working on this yet at your company? Yikes.

    @russ0519 said:

    That's already $15-$20k lost.  

    It is not money lost. It is money invested in your business. 

    @russ0519 said:

    I would rather spend the time converting our app to MySQL or something.

    Go ahead, with this kind of thinking you won't be around in a few years anyway so no one will miss your business.

     @russ0519 said:

    It's inexcusable for MS to not support SQL 2K. 

    It is 8 years old. Two versions will have been released before being 'twilighted'. What did you expect?

    @russ0519 said:

    They should just come out with a service pack that supports it, since they're obviously not going to give out free upgrades.

    Did you get some kind of guarantee with the software that said you will be able to pay once, and use it forever with upgrades forever? I guess I didn't get that piece of paper.

     

    You are really a fucking idiot. I thought I could keep this post somewhat polite, but you are a flaming retard. It just took a little while for it to become so clear.

    You obviously have zero clue how the software industry works, and you are obviously only here to start the flamewar that I credited you with after your OP.

    Why don't you ask your company to buy you a clue? That might be a better investment to start with.



  • @russ0519 said:

    Server 2k8 doesn't support it either.  I can run it in a VM, but that would require an additional license for XP or 2k Server, as well as an extra 512MB of ram for the OS. 

    I already have UAC turned off.  SQL Express is great and all, but it's useless as my production machines are SQL 2K, so I would want my dev box to also run SQL 2K.   

    Yea, it's 8 years old, but SQL 2k5 is only 2.5 years old, which barely give people enough time to upgrade, most orgs would wait for at least SP1, which was 2 years ago.

    Then there's the cost.  It would cost us 11k to upgrade a single 2k server, and like I said, it's not chump change to a small business, especially when we don't need any extra features of SQL 2k5.     

     

    Really, just run along. 

    8 years support for a product is far more than enough.

     

    Get a fucking clue.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:

    I would rather spend the time converting our app to MySQL or something.

    Go ahead, with this kind of thinking you won't be around in a few years anyway so no one will miss your business.

    Could you elaborate on this please?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:

    Server 2k8 doesn't support it either.  I can run it in a VM, but that would require an additional license for XP or 2k Server, as well as an extra 512MB of ram for the OS. 

    I already have UAC turned off.  SQL Express is great and all, but it's useless as my production machines are SQL 2K, so I would want my dev box to also run SQL 2K.   

    Yea, it's 8 years old, but SQL 2k5 is only 2.5 years old, which barely give people enough time to upgrade, most orgs would wait for at least SP1, which was 2 years ago.

    Then there's the cost.  It would cost us 11k to upgrade a single 2k server, and like I said, it's not chump change to a small business, especially when we don't need any extra features of SQL 2k5.     

     

    Really, just run along. 

    8 years support for a product is far more than enough.

    Get a fucking clue.

    Now I undertand why nobody on this forum pays any attention to you.  You are obviously not able to keep a constructive conversation going without resorting to yelling and cursing.  What are you twelve? 

    You are obviously an MS fanboi, but that's clear from reading your posts.  You know nothing of linux or the world outside of MS, or just choose to plainly ignore it.  There is a world outside of MS, and there are comparable/better products out there. 

     Would you still be saying that 8 years of support is more then enough if SQL 2k5 wasn't out yet?  Lets say SQL 2k5 never came out, and you had to wait for next year to upgrade to SQL 2k8 (if it ever comes out on time). 

     Mind you, SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years, so for the 5 years before it, SQL 2k was just fine, but now all of a sudden it's crap?  MS should at least support the last two versions (I'm sure SQL 7 run just fine on XP and Windows 2003). 

    And in fact, SQL 2k is still supported, just not in Vista or 2k8.  Everyone blames app vendors for not making their apps/drivers compatible with Vista, and here is MS saying... oohhh.. it's too complicated for us, we'd rather just drop support for it on Vista then release a service pack to make it compatible. 



  • @Lingerance said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:

    I would rather spend the time converting our app to MySQL or something.

    Go ahead, with this kind of thinking you won't be around in a few years anyway so no one will miss your business.

    Could you elaborate on this please?

    I believe what he meant was "I'm an MS fanboi, and I choose to ignore that there is other, better software out there that's not made by Micro$haft."

    While personally, I don't use MySQL due to the lack of usable standard GUI tools, I would love to use it as it has free clustering, something that would cost me $100k (not an exageration) with SQL 2k5.  The only problem is that we have to recode all of the Stored Procs that we have on our SQL 2k DB.



  • @russ0519 said:

    You are obviously not able to keep a constructive conversation going without resorting to yelling and cursing.  What are you twelve? 

    If he thinks you're trolling he becomes extremely aggressive, it's annoying yes, but at the same time he also has acquired a great sum of knowledge about MS' frequently over-priced products.
    @russ0519 said:
    Mind you, SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years, so for the 5 years before it, SQL 2k was just fine, but now all of a sudden it's crap?  MS should at least support the last two versions (I'm sure SQL 7 run just fine on XP and Windows 2003).

    I would suggest you run it in a VM then, Enterprise Server 2003 allows for 4 VMs to share a license with a physical box.
    @russ0519 said:
    You are obviously an MS fanboi, but that's clear from reading your posts.  You know nothing of linux or the world outside of MS, or just choose to plainly ignore it.  There is a world outside of MS, and there are comparable/better products out there.

    Actually, I believe, he mentioned something about him using Ubuntu, he also as made a point server times of mentioning he is running the latest beta for Firefox 3.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:

    Do you have $11k to drop for SQL 2k5?
     

    There is a free version for you to get started with and develop against.

    Which is great for development, but what about production? 

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

     

    @russ0519 said:

    For a small business $11k is a nice chunk of change. 

    Yes it is, and completely worth it to stay on a supported platform.

    SQL 2K is still a supported platform.  Just not on Vista or Server 2k8.  

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:
    What about the time that we'll have to put in to upgrade our installations and to make sure that our existing code works with SQL 2k5? 

    Price of doing business. This kind of thing should be budgeted in. Are you telling me that in the last 8 years no one in your company has figured out that they will need to upgrade crucial business software?

    SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years, so really we've only had about 2.5 years to think about it.  Being a small business, some of us would rather have the money going toward salaries then useless upgrades.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:
    I mean theoretically it should work, but it still needs to be tested. 

    Yes it should. And there will be plenty of changes and time spent. You had many years to start getting prepared for this. SQL server 2005 and now SQL server 2008. Is no one working on this yet at your company? Yikes.

    Out of three developers that we have, we have all three focused on making money for the company, not wasting time on useless upgrades.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:
    That's already $15-$20k lost.  

    It is not money lost. It is money invested in your business. 

    Considering the upgrade will not provide us with any improvements, I would consider it money lost.  There is nothing in SQL 2k5 that we NEED.  There are some things that would be nice to have, but nothing that we really NEED.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:
    I would rather spend the time converting our app to MySQL or something.

    Go ahead, with this kind of thinking you won't be around in a few years anyway so no one will miss your business.

    Apparently you hate open source software.  Next thing you will say is that Visual Source Safe is better then SVN.  Seriously, pull the stick out of your ass and widen your horizons a bit.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:
    It's inexcusable for MS to not support SQL 2K. 

    It is 8 years old. Two versions will have been released before being 'twilighted'. What did you expect?

     

    It's replacement is only 2.5 years old, and I'm not sure what you are talking about being 'twilighted'. 

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @russ0519 said:
    They should just come out with a service pack that supports it, since they're obviously not going to give out free upgrades.

    Did you get some kind of guarantee with the software that said you will be able to pay once, and use it forever with upgrades forever? I guess I didn't get that piece of paper.

     

    No, but I would expect a vendor to at least support the last couple of versions of their application.  Which they actually do.  They just don't support it on Vista, and that's the real WTF.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You are really a fucking idiot. I thought I could keep this post somewhat polite, but you are a flaming retard. It just took a little while for it to become so clear.

    You obviously have zero clue how the software industry works, and you are obviously only here to start the flamewar that I credited you with after your OP.

    Why don't you ask your company to buy you a clue? That might be a better investment to start with.

    I've already posted about you being a MS fanboi with a mind of a 12 year old.  I didn't come here looking for a flamewar, I came here to see why people have Vista so much, and I guess the answer ended up being upgrade to SP1.  (I've been running SP1 since I got the PC, which is why I haven't seen the annoying bugs that people have been posting about. )

    In any case, you should really finish junior high, then high school, then college, get a job, and then you can start posting about how great MS is.   



  • @Lingerance said:

    @russ0519 said:
    You are obviously not able to keep a constructive conversation going without resorting to yelling and cursing.  What are you twelve? 
    If he thinks you're trolling he becomes extremely aggressive, it's annoying yes, but at the same time he also has acquired a great sum of knowledge about MS' frequently over-priced products.


    He really needs to work on his anger issues, and while his knowlege of MS products seems on point most of the time, he also refuses to acknoledge MS' shortcomings, or acknowledge that sometimes OSS is better.

    @Lingerance said:

    @russ0519 said:
    Mind you, SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years, so for the 5 years before it, SQL 2k was just fine, but now all of a sudden it's crap?  MS should at least support the last two versions (I'm sure SQL 7 run just fine on XP and Windows 2003).
    I would suggest you run it in a VM then, Enterprise Server 2003 allows for 4 VMs to share a license with a physical box.

    Yes, I can run it in a VM and if I had Server 2008, I would either use my downgrade rights or run it in a Server 2k3 VM.   The issue here is that I want to run it on my desktop, which runs Vista, and doesn't supprot SQL 2k.  As was mentioned, I can run it in a Server 2k3 VM, but it would require additional licensing costs.  

    @Lingerance said:

     @russ0519 said:
    You are obviously an MS fanboi, but that's clear from reading your posts.  You know nothing of linux or the world outside of MS, or just choose to plainly ignore it.  There is a world outside of MS, and there are comparable/better products out there.
    Actually, I believe, he mentioned something about him using Ubuntu, he also as made a point server times of mentioning he is running the latest beta for Firefox 3.


    I haven't read all of his posts, but the way he's spoken in this thread suggests that he's against anything that's not MS made.



  • @russ0519 said:

    He really needs to work on his anger issues
    Coincidentally so do you, Ref: Post before quoted.
    @russ0519 said:
    @Lingerance said:
    I would suggest you run it in a VM then, Enterprise Server 2003 allows for 4 VMs to share a license with a physical box.

    Yes, I can run it in a VM and if I had Server 2008, I would either use my downgrade rights or run it in a Server 2k3 VM.   The issue here is that I want to run it on my desktop, which runs Vista, and doesn't supprot SQL 2k.  As was mentioned, I can run it in a Server 2k3 VM, but it would require additional licensing costs.
    ??? Anyways, if you really want, I have 3 years of 180 trial licenses of Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, I can give you an iso and a key, I honestly haven't needed to use them as I have a real copy of Enterprise Edition.



  • @Lingerance said:

    @russ0519 said:
    He really needs to work on his anger issues
    Coincidentally so do you, Ref: Post before quoted.

    When people start calling me an idiot for no good reason, and starting to curse also for no good reason, I don't think it's out of line to call them immature. 

    @Lingerance said:

    @russ0519 said:
    @Lingerance said:
    I would suggest you run it in a VM then, Enterprise Server 2003 allows for 4 VMs to share a license with a physical box.
    Yes, I can run it in a VM and if I had Server 2008, I would either use my downgrade rights or run it in a Server 2k3 VM.   The issue here is that I want to run it on my desktop, which runs Vista, and doesn't supprot SQL 2k.  As was mentioned, I can run it in a Server 2k3 VM, but it would require additional licensing costs.
    ??? Anyways, if you really want, I have 3 years of 180 trial licenses of Server 2003 Enterprise Edition, I can give you an iso and a key, I honestly haven't needed to use them as I have a real copy of Enterprise Edition.

    I don't think you're understanding me.  I want to run it on Vista.  If I put Server 2k3 in a VM on top of Vista, I would have to pay for a Server 2k3 license.  If I install a 180 day trial, I would have to reinstall every 6 months.  I mean I can always pirate the win2k3 and we have a technet subscription which I guess could be used for this, but I think it's beside the point.  The point is that a piece of software, which is still supported by MS, won't run on Vista.  The replacement for said software has only been out for about 2 years, and if it's not unreasonable for other vendors to have patches to make their software work with Vista, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask MS to do the same thing, espeically considering it's their own software and OS.



  • @Lingerance said:

    Could you elaborate on this please?
     

    If his company doesn't even have the intelligence to budget for software upgrades, how long do YOU think they will be around?



  • @russ0519 said:

    You are obviously not able to keep a constructive conversation going without resorting to yelling and cursing. 
     

    Only with people I discover to be trolls who were lying to us.

    @russ0519 said:

    What are you twelve? 

    Why, are you feeling like you are amongst peers?

     @russ0519 said:

    You know nothing of linux or the world outside of MS

     Hmm that is funny. See that link in my signature? Running on Linux.

    Sure is funny... MS must be making Linux now!

    @russ0519 said:

    here is a world outside of MS, and there are comparable/better products out there.

    Then go use them and stop trolling forums.

    @russ0519 said:

     Would you still be saying that 8 years of support is more then enough if SQL 2k5 wasn't out yet? 

    Nope I would be complaining that they never release anything new. But it isn't just 2k5. 2k8 is ready to launch. You are TWO versions behind.

    @russ0519 said:

    Lets say SQL 2k5 never came out, and you had to wait for next year to upgrade to SQL 2k8 (if it ever comes out on time). 

    What the hell are you even talking about? Change the subject much?

    @russ0519 said:

    SQL 2k was just fine, but now all of a sudden it's crap

    No it is 2008, and they will two versions running. They have decided to twilight the product. First time using commercial software?

    @russ0519 said:

    MS should at least support the last two versions (I'm sure SQL 7 run just fine on XP and Windows 2003). 

    They are. 2005 and 2008.

    @russ0519 said:

    Everyone blames app vendors for not making their apps/drivers compatible with Vista, and here is MS saying... oohhh.. it's too complicated for us, we'd rather just drop support for it on Vista then release a service pack to make it compatible. 

    No. They are saying "It is time to twilight an eight year old product. Supporting too many versions of the same product is not cost effective."



  • @russ0519 said:

    "I'm an MS fanboi, and I choose to ignore that there is other, better software out there that's not made by Micro$haft."
     

    Wow, how clever. Another Anti-MS troll.

    Go worship your lord douchebag Lysis. You can make allies with dlikhten, Lysis and aogail. They will help you post lolcat posters and other spam to the sidebar.

    @russ0519 said:

    I would love to use it as it has free clustering, something that would cost me $100k

    You need clustering for that small business that cannot afford SQL Server Standard?

    Interesting.

    @russ0519 said:

    The only problem is that we have to recode all of the Stored Procs that we have on our SQL 2k DB.

    Which you obviously were not up for the task for and instead decided to come on here and promote your stupidity.



  • @russ0519 said:

    If I put Server 2k3 in a VM on top of Vista, I would have to pay for a Server 2k3 license.
    So your work is using Windows 2000 (or NT) Servers then? Either-way until there is a convincing argument otherwise I would personally suggest MySQL or PostgreSQL (sp?) if those suit your needs better. I've run out of arguments for Devil's Advocate. Note: I do not do professional development, MPS does, wait for him to respond to my question before you actually go through.
    @russ0519 said:
    I don't think it's unreasonable to ask MS to do the same thing, espeically considering it's their own software and OS.

    Indeed yes, I am not familiar with MS' EOL policies, however, my understanding is they generally don't keep their shit alive for more than 5 years, even if they kept it for 10 years Vista would be in its prime when SQL 2000 dies.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    If his company doesn't even have the intelligence to budget for software upgrades, how long do YOU think they will be around?
    SSDS is still around isn't it?
    So it has nothing to do from a technological perspective then?



  • @russ0519 said:

    Which is great for development, but what about production? 
     

    The idea would be for you to actually get with the times and start migrating to a viable platform. I am sorry if you feel that is not the best avenue. By all means make the transition to MySQL instead. That should really be productive.

    @russ0519 said:

    SQL 2K is still a supported platform.  Just not on Vista or Server 2k8.  

    Then why did you upgrade to Vista?

    And, not for long: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=12&y=13&p1=2852

    Get with the times.

    @russ0519 said:

    SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years, so really we've only had about 2.5 years to think about it.  Being a small business, some of us would rather have the money going toward salaries then useless upgrades.

    Then I wish you luck in the bankruptcy proceedings. It doesn't require a whole lot of intelligence to know that you must budget for software/hardware upgrades. No one stuck you in this boat. You did it to yourselves.

    @russ0519 said:

    Out of three developers that we have, we have all three focused on making money for the company, not wasting time on useless upgrades.

    Upgrades are all about making money. If you can't understand that, then you wont be around long enough to argue with.

    If you can't stay in tune with the latest technology I advise you to start seriously reviewing your business plan. Does the lead decision maker spend a lot of time drinking?

     @russ0519 said:

    There is nothing in SQL 2k5 that we NEED.

    You are saying you need a continued lifecycle and support. So I would say you don't have a good grasp on what you need.

    @russ0519 said:

    Apparently you hate open source software.

    As I write this on FF3b5, with my bank of Ubuntu servers running upstairs. Interesting.

     @russ0519 said:

    It's replacement is only 2.5 years old, and I'm not sure what you are talking about being 'twilighted'. 

    You should look it up then. It is not my fault you have not done the technical research before running your mouth like a fool.

    Again: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=12&y=13&p1=2852

     @russ0519 said:

    No, but I would expect a vendor to at least support the last couple of versions of their application.  Which they actually do.  They just don't support it on Vista, and that's the real WTF.

    a) I cannot blame for not supporting running a Server platform on their desktop OS. If you don't even have a dev or test server maybe the problem is not with MS.

    b) They are supporting multiple versions 2008, and 2005. Pick one, and run with it. Everyone else has to do it too. This is how the software world works.

     @russ0519 said:

    I didn't come here looking for a flamewar

    Yes you definitely did. And I called you out on the second post of the thread. I just didn't know at that time how trollish you were really going to get.



  • @russ0519 said:

    The issue here is that I want to run it on my desktop, which runs Vista
     

    Then why didn't you use XP? Are you unable to understand the situations here? They are very simple. You are getting plenty of answers how to reach your goal, but clearly that is not what you are looking for. 

    @russ0519 said:


    I haven't read all of his posts, but the way he's spoken in this thread suggests that he's against anything that's not MS made.

    More importantly, you were looking for a flamewar and you got one. Unfortunately, it turns out you have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

    I can see how that would be embarrassing for you.



  • @russ0519 said:

    If I install a 180 day trial, I would have to reinstall every 6 months.
     

    Do you understand how VMs work?

    @russ0519 said:

    The point is that a piece of software, which is still supported by MS, won't run on Vista.

    Again, no it isn't, and no it shouldn't.

    @russ0519 said:

    if it's not unreasonable for other vendors to have patches to make their software work with Vista

    Yes, but they can choose to roll out new versions to work with Vista instead of making something two releases old work on Vista. Which is what MS is doing with SQL server.

    Many other vendors will do the same as well.

    @russ0519 said:

    I don't think it's unreasonable to ask MS to do the same thing

    I do. And obviously so does MS. You are very unreasonable, but you will never understand it. You already are stuck in that Slashdot anti-MS mindset where you will just continue to troll and never understand that maybe the reason why MS has so much money and you don't is because they actually know what they are doing.



  • @russ0519 said:

    nd if it's not unreasonable for other vendors to have patches to make their software work with Vista, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask MS to do the same thing, espeically considering it's their own software and OS.
     

    I don't think it is unreasonable for a software company to provide patches or new versions for product lines they plan on continuing.  Whether or not it is a free patch or a new version available either via maintenance or new license is another question.  I certainly don't expect any software vendor to provide a free patch for an 8 year old software package and I certainly don't want Microsoft to do that in this case.  If Microsoft would continue to provide general support for SQL 2k, then they would be simultaneously supporting 3 versions and 2 codebases and that would ultimately drive up costs.

     

    But if you are considering OSS as a viable solution I wouldn't recommend MySQL for any transactional database, I'd go with postgres instead.  If on the other hand you want an OLAP or datawarehouse, MySQL has the advantage since you can bypass transaction logging with MyISAM.

     

     



  • @Lingerance said:

    I would personally suggest MySQL or PostgreSQL
     

    I would too, because he will never be happy with commercial software. Once he is all OSS he will feel vindicated that he has fought against the man. 

    What it will do to his business is another thing. But I really don't see the difference in changing *everything* now when he cannot afford SQL server, or just staying with a twilighted product.

     

    When your business cannot afford the upgrades to new software/equipment you know it is deep in the decay stage. I would bail ASAP. OSS is not going to save you.



  • @Lingerance said:

    they generally don't keep their shit alive for more than 5 years, even if they kept it for 10 years Vista would be in its prime when SQL 2000 dies.
     

    No one in their right mind would continue supporting that many product versions.



  • @Lingerance said:

    SSDS is still around isn't it?
     

    Does Spectate look like he is bringing in money?



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Does Spectate look like he is bringing in money?
    I have reason to believe that he isn't undead, therefore he is either a living creature or a robot. Now I seriously doubt someone would be able to make a robot to those specifications no matter how much weed is consumed during it's unholy creation, therefore SS mush be some sort of unholy living creature which indicates he requires food. He also has three bills to pay: Land, Utilities (including Power) and Communications. As he is paying for those bills and is most likely buying food (I doubt he lives off the land) I can conclude he has a job. He also appears to sell T-Shirts. No matter how mentally handicapped a mentally handicapped person is they still think $100 is a significant amount of money, so in his perspective, yes, he is raking in the money.



  • @Lingerance said:

    Indeed yes, I am not familiar with MS' EOL policies, however, my understanding is they generally don't keep their shit alive for more than 5 years, even if they kept it for 10 years Vista would be in its prime when SQL 2000 dies.
     

    Yeah, but the whole "5-year" thing is a fairly new policy, AFAIK.  MS supported Windows 98 until 2006 and VB6 (a 1999 release) was supported until March 2008.

    A few people have noted that MS has lost its "backward compatibility religion" and started make breaking changes in their products, like Apple.  On the one hand, this allows them to innovate and improve their products.  On the other hand, it takes away one of the major reasons for sticking with MS - backwards compatibility.  IMO, that is one of the reasons some people hate Vista.

    Here's another joelonsoftware blog on the topic of MS and backwards compatibility.  

    http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

    (Note, the fact that I link to his blog doesn't imply that I agree or disagree with his opinions.  I simply found that post interesting.) 



  • Anyone know how to install Firefox on GeoWorks Ensemble?



  • @CodeSimian said:

    Yeah, but the whole "5-year" thing is a fairly new policy, AFAIK.  MS supported Windows 98 until 2006 and VB6 (a 1999 release) was supported until March 2008.
     

    The basic outline of the policy has been in effect since 2002, so it's not that new.  The big thing was that it was documented and was standardized across all business products so support policies weren't different between products.

    Also there is two separate support phases, mainstream (feature additions, hotfix, and security updates) and extended (just security).  Minimum support is 10 years (5 mainstream, 5 extended) but you can get longer support if MS is really slow at releasing successors.  

    They comparison with Win98 and VB6 is incorrect, those were extended support.  SQL 2k extended support ends in like 2010 or 2011 (I don't remember which). At the time Vista was released SQL 2k was in mainstream support, but the policy isn't clear on whether supporting a newer OS can be considered a feature.  Given the uncertainty, I think MS did the right thing for the majority of its customers by not spending time reworking it to work on newer OSs.

     

     



  • @lpope187 said:

    At the time Vista was released SQL 2k was in mainstream support, but the policy isn't clear on whether supporting a newer OS can be considered a feature.  Given the uncertainty, I think MS did the right thing for the majority of its customers by not spending time reworking it to work on newer OSs.

     

     

    When Vista came out, SQL 2K was still in mainstream support, and SQL 2k8 was nowhere in sight.  It's still not a released product, with no definitive due date, so no, MS is not supporting two products right now, but only one - SQL 2k5. 

    Also as far as upgrading - like I said, it doesn't have any features I need.  I'm not looking for support from MS, I've never gotten any from them and I don't expect any.  I just don't expect that their own products would just refuse to run on their own OS.  If I will upgrade, it will be to something that supports clustering, and I don't think we have 100k in the budget to upgrade to SQL 2k5 enterprise.  

    If I wasn't managing an app with over a million lines of code, I would've recoded it to use something like MySQL or PostgreSQL (assuming it supports clustering).  While the MS GUI is nice, it's not worth paying $100k for.  

    As far as using Vista, nobody forced me to use it... well except that it came with the new PC that I bought, so I didn't really have much choice.  I could've downgraded to XP using Vista's downgrade rights, but I've used XP 64 in the past, and I've had a lot of issues.  Vista 32 was no good as it didn't support all my RAM.  The only choice seemed to be Vista x64, which works great,,, except for the issues I mentioned.  

    In general, I feel that MS is finally getting their act together, but that it was a bad decision on their part to drop support for SQL 2k on Vista and 2k8.  Actually the Client Tools run fine for me after one workaround.  Maybe the server part  from the dev cd would install too, I don't remember if I chose not to install it..

    I really didn't come here looking for a flamewar.  I honestly wanted to know why people hate Vista, but I just understood why most enterprises wait until SP1 to upgrade - most issues are fixed by SP1. 

    And I really don't understand why, just because I don't want to shell out $10 - $100k for something that I don't need, that my company is doomed to fail?  It might be easy for an enterprise that has multimillion dollar budgets, but when you're a small business, every penny counts.  Instead of blindly giving all my money away to microsoft, I choose to decide whether the expense is justified - and currently SQL 2k5 is not justified, even the standard edition.  My 2k3 server runs it just fine, it's still in extended support for another 5 years, so I'll get the security patches, my client tools work fine, and my dev server runs 2k fine on win2k3. 

    When 2k8 finally comes out (probably not until next year), then I lose the right to bitch that 2k is not supported on my OS.  SQL 2k5 is only 2.5 years old, and lets say I bought SQL 2k in October 2005 (right before 2k5 came out).  So now I spent 100k on a product only 2.5 years ago, and now MS wants me to spend another $100k just to run it on Server 2008?  True, I could've bought software assurance, but that's probably another $50k right there. 

    Lets say I spend another $100k and buy 2k5.  The next version of Windows comes out and drops support for 2k8.  Now it's only 2 years later (2010) and I have to spend another $100k.  

    To enterprises, this is peanuts, and they pay to make MS rich year after year.  To the little guys, not so much, which is why they go looking for OSS, which btw I love.  SVN is a great example of OSS that MS just can't match with all their money.  



  • @CodeSimian said:

    No, but someone specifically complained about using Vista on a laptop with ~512 MB of RAM.  He blamed the hardware vendors.  I am simply pointing out, that in this case, Microsoft must share some of the blame.  If we were discussing Apple, Dell, etc. I would not hesitate to point out their own egregious marketing BS.
     

    While I'm not defending MS on this, someone should point out that they did make software available that tested systems for compatibility and performance with Vista. They also made it pretty well known, so anyone (Lingerance, for example?) could have downloaded that software and been able to tell that their 512MB, 1.5 year old system was a piece of crap and therefore not suitable for Vista. Instead, they just bought and installed Vista on the crappy hardware and then whined all over the place about it. 



  • @russ0519 said:

    Says Microsoft: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/faq-sql_on_vista.mspx

    I was able to install the developer tools from the dev cd after ignoring the compatibility warnings, but didn't try installing the actual server and a full version of SQL 2K, plain refused to run.  

    Considering this was made by MS, I would expect a fix to make it run under Vista.  We plopped out a lot of money for SQL 2K back in the day, and there is no upgrade path (as with all MS Server software).  So now I plain can't use SQL 2K on my desktop?  I guess MS devs are the idiots who couldn't program the software properly?

     

    Ahhh. Got it. Your point is that you don't understand that 8 or 9 year old SERVER software won't run on the new DESKTOP OS, and you think that proves your point. 

    Someone want to sell him a clue? I don't think all the free ones we've been offering are doing any good. 



  • @russ0519 said:

    Do you have $11k to drop for SQL 2k5?  And another $11k when SQL 2k8 comes out (or whatever maintanence costs)?  

    For a small business $11k is a nice chunk of change.  What about the time that we'll have to put in to upgrade our installations and to make sure that our existing code works with SQL 2k5?  I mean theoretically it should work, but it still needs to be tested.  That's already $15-$20k lost.  

    I would rather spend the time converting our app to MySQL or something.   It's inexcusable for MS to not support SQL 2K.  They should just come out with a service pack that supports it, since they're obviously not going to give out free upgrades.

     

    Why would you have to spend all that money? Presumably, you have a license for an OS that WILL run SQL 2K, right? Install that OS, either in place of Vista or in a VM running on Vista. Wow! You have your SQL 2K.

    Expecting MS to put out a service pack for a no-longer supported product in order to keep you from needing to upgrade is idiotic. Do you expect a patch to DOS 6 real soon now because of that old DOS game that just doesn't run right in a command prompt on XP? No? Why not?

    Expecting them to support ancient versions of software is stupid. If they did that for every software, no one would ever upgrade, and MS wouldn't be in business. Kind of a bad idea from their point of view, don't you think? I mean, all of those people losing their jobs and all just so you can run antique software?

     



  • @russ0519 said:

    Would you still be saying that 8 years of support is more then enough if SQL 2k5 wasn't out yet?  Lets say SQL 2k5 never came out, and you had to wait for next year to upgrade to SQL 2k8 (if it ever comes out on time). 

    Of course not. That would make it the current version, and therefore it WOULD still be supported. Can't you even come up with an argument that makes sense?

     @russ0519 said:

    Mind you, SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years, so for the 5 years before it, SQL 2k was just fine, but now all of a sudden it's crap?  MS should at least support the last two versions (I'm sure SQL 7 run just fine on XP and Windows 2003). 

    Yes, it's crap now. It's two versions past its' prime, and MS has to support the two later versions as well as work on the next version. How far back do you think they should go?

    Oh, wait. I forgot. You're the one that just now, after 8 years, is realizing that software expires as more and more new versions are released, and haven't had the foresight to plan for it, but instead are trying to convince everyone that your lack of planning and professionalism was in fact not your fault, but M$. Hadn't realized until this thread that you were one of *those* people. You know the ones I mean? The ones who are idiots and try to blame M$ for everything, even when it's not MS's fault but their own instead? 

    @russ0519 said:

    And in fact, SQL 2k is still supported, just not in Vista or 2k8.  Everyone blames app vendors for not making their apps/drivers compatible with Vista, and here is MS saying... oohhh.. it's too complicated for us, we'd rather just drop support for it on Vista then release a service pack to make it compatible.

     

    Right. It's supported on the older OS versions that it was designed for; if you want to use a newer OS, use a newer version of the software designed to support it. It's called progress. People move forward, except for those not smart enough to handle it. I guess we know what category you fall into. 



  • @russ0519 said:

    I believe what he meant was "I'm an MS fanboi, and I choose to ignore that there is other, better software out there that's not made by Micro$haft."
     

    No, what he meant was that if your company is relying on you to maintain the software that keeps them in business, they won't be around long. You obviously don't have the chops to stay current enough for things to keep working. I mean, 8 years warning and you're still surprised, and then try and blame everybody but you for being behind the times. 



  • What a fun thread! Lots of toys being thrown out of lots of prams!

    @MPS - practice what you preach for a bit, will you? Quit ragging the guy who got a Vista Experience of 1.0 and have a look here: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/458117.aspx (reading his post will also help, although I know from the past that you're occasionally not inclined to do that). All of his scores were well above 1.0 except for Graphics, and as we all know, the final Index is the lowest of the scores. Poor performance in the graphics subsystem does not equate to poor performance anywhere else. (Pre-emptive MPS reply: "I have no idea what you're talking about"). You are capable of making good and insightful posts, but when you get on your high horse like that, you lose all credibility.

    Re: "Nobody FORCED you to upgrade to Vista" - maybe not now, but in a few years time when XP is EOL'ed people aren't going to have much choice, are they? Not if they want to stay on a supported platform. (Of course the option of staying on XP is also there even then, but witness the SQL 2K debate...)

    Yes, I believe Vista is a good OS... for the home user. For a business desktop roll out, it is not suitable. Too many things break, too many legacy apps will require re-engineering or replacement. As Raymond Chen put it once: "Guess what: the cost of upgrading to the next version of Windows just doubled!" Hell, even Group Policy Logon Script processing has issues with UAC (and with a complete absence of UAC dialogs too) (yes, I know the fix is to use a Vista GPO, meaning that the GPO admin overhead has just doubled too). It's only recently we've got Domain admin tools for Vista. If MS were truly serious about Vista on a business desktop, these things should not be problems at RTM.

    We've been through this before with moving to 2000, then moving to XP, but on Vista it's orders of magnitude worse. I'm going to take a very wild stab in the dark and guess that the root cause of this is the disconnect between the server and the client OSs, which first happened with XP/2003.  By no longer having these marching in step, the client OS is free to go off on all kinds of tangents, and by having the server released a year or more later we have the intermediate period during which proper server support for new client features is just not available.  I don't know about anyone else, but to me it seems far more productive to be spending my time providing genuine solutions for my customers than to be spending it solving problems that should never have existed in the first place.



  • @KenW said:

    Ahhh. Got it. Your point is that you don't understand that 8 or 9 year old SERVER software won't run on the new DESKTOP OS, and you think that proves your point. 

    Someone want to sell him a clue? I don't think all the free ones we've been offering are doing any good.

     

    I'll sell you one: SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition. 



  • @KenW said:

    @russ0519 said:

    Do you have $11k to drop for SQL 2k5?  And another $11k when SQL 2k8 comes out (or whatever maintanence costs)?  

    For a small business $11k is a nice chunk of change.  What about the time that we'll have to put in to upgrade our installations and to make sure that our existing code works with SQL 2k5?  I mean theoretically it should work, but it still needs to be tested.  That's already $15-$20k lost.  

    I would rather spend the time converting our app to MySQL or something.   It's inexcusable for MS to not support SQL 2K.  They should just come out with a service pack that supports it, since they're obviously not going to give out free upgrades.

     

    Why would you have to spend all that money? Presumably, you have a license for an OS that WILL run SQL 2K, right? Install that OS, either in place of Vista or in a VM running on Vista. Wow! You have your SQL 2K.

    Expecting MS to put out a service pack for a no-longer supported product in order to keep you from needing to upgrade is idiotic. Do you expect a patch to DOS 6 real soon now because of that old DOS game that just doesn't run right in a command prompt on XP? No? Why not?

    Expecting them to support ancient versions of software is stupid. If they did that for every software, no one would ever upgrade, and MS wouldn't be in business. Kind of a bad idea from their point of view, don't you think? I mean, all of those people losing their jobs and all just so you can run antique software?

     

    I do have an OS that will run SQL 2k - but it's being used.  I have an XP box, but that license is not trasferable as it was an OEM license.  Sure, I can cheat and install it in a VM, but that would be violating the license agreement.  So basically, I have to go out and buy an  XP license if I want to run my apps.  The least they could've done is allow Vista to be run in a VM under the same license for at least the ultimate edition (which I have).  Then I can use my downgrade rights to run XP.      



  • @russ0519 said:

    The least they could've done is allow Vista to be run in a VM under the same license for at least the ultimate edition (which I have).
    Hurray for not owning software you paid for.



  • @KenW said:

    @russ0519 said:

    I believe what he meant was "I'm an MS fanboi, and I choose to ignore that there is other, better software out there that's not made by Micro$haft."
     

    No, what he meant was that if your company is relying on you to maintain the software that keeps them in business, they won't be around long. You obviously don't have the chops to stay current enough for things to keep working. I mean, 8 years warning and you're still surprised, and then try and blame everybody but you for being behind the times. 

     

    Why are all you MS drones keep saying 8 year warning.  By the same logic, you should be scrambling to replace SQL 2k8 right now, as it's getting past it's prime.  

    SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years. That's the amount of time that people have had to adapt.  Period.  It doesn't matter if SQL 2k has been around for 8 years or 800 years.  It's replacement has only been around for 2.5 years. 

    SQL 2k works just fine, why should I upgrade?  Lets say you're driving a 2000 Nissan Maxima.  Your car runs great and has 50k miles on it.  Nissan came out with many upgrades through the years, but you're happy with your car, and you don't need the new features.  Now lets say Nissan built a new highway, and they pass a law that says that you can't drive your 2000 Nissan Maxima on that highway.   If you want to drive on that highway, you'd have to buy a Nissan that's been built after 2005.  They won't offer you a trade-in, you have to pay full price for the new car.

    So now would you say that you've had 8 years to upgrade your car and that you're an idiot for driving a car that's 8 years old even though it fits your needs perfectly and is in great condition?  



  • @russ0519 said:

    I don't think you're understanding me.  I want to run it on Vista.  If I put Server 2k3 in a VM on top of Vista, I would have to pay for a Server 2k3 license.  If I install a 180 day trial, I would have to reinstall every 6 months.  I mean I can always pirate the win2k3 and we have a technet subscription which I guess could be used for this, but I think it's beside the point.  The point is that a piece of software, which is still supported by MS, won't run on Vista.  The replacement for said software has only been out for about 2 years, and if it's not unreasonable for other vendors to have patches to make their software work with Vista, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask MS to do the same thing, espeically considering it's their own software and OS.
     

    Right. And I for one want them to support my running VS2008 on MS-DOS 3.2. Same logic. "Continue to support outdated software no longer how long it has been outdated or how many newer versions of the software or OS have been released in the meantime."

    Saying "I want to run it on Vista." is ridiculous. If you want to run SQL Server on Vista, run a version that is Vista compatible. Refusing to keep up with the times is fine; just at least have the decency not to whine about the fact that everyone else on the planet has moved on even after you decided to stand still.

    And even though "the replacement for said software has only been out for about two years", that in no way is a justification. You have known forever that new versions of software are released, and that support for older versions is dropped at some point. Unless you intend for us to believe that you thought that SQL 2K was the last version of SQL Server that MS intended to release.; if that is the case, you really are out of touch.



  • @KenW said:

    @russ0519 said:
    Mind you, SQL 2k5 has only been out for 2.5 years, so for the 5 years before it, SQL 2k was just fine, but now all of a sudden it's crap?  MS should at least support the last two versions (I'm sure SQL 7 run just fine on XP and Windows 2003). 

    Yes, it's crap now. It's two versions past its' prime, and MS has to support the two later versions as well as work on the next version. How far back do you think they should go?

    Which two version would that be? SQL 2k and the vaporware SQL 2k5?  Which si the next version they're working on SQL 2k12?  2k48?  

    The truth of the matter is that there is only one version of SQL that's supported by MS - SQL 2k5.  Well actually two, but support for SQL 2k runs out today.  If you think that MS supports SQL 2k8 right now, you're dreaming.  

    @KenW said:

    @russ0519 said:
    And in fact, SQL 2k is still supported, just not in Vista or 2k8.  Everyone blames app vendors for not making their apps/drivers compatible with Vista, and here is MS saying... oohhh.. it's too complicated for us, we'd rather just drop support for it on Vista then release a service pack to make it compatible.

     

    Right. It's supported on the older OS versions that it was designed for; if you want to use a newer OS, use a newer version of the software designed to support it. It's called progress. People move forward, except for those not smart enough to handle it. I guess we know what category you fall into. 

     

    So basically it comes down to this... if you want to use Vista, either hope that your software is compatible, or be ready to pay through the nose for the software that isn't.  Thank you for proving my point. 



  • @mfah said:

    All of his scores were well above 1.0 except for Graphics, and as we all know, the final Index is the lowest of the scores. Poor performance in the graphics subsystem does not equate to poor performance anywhere else.
     

    Read the rest of the Lingerance post. He said that everything else scored in the low 2 range as well. Expecting Vista to run on that system is just foolish, and as I pointed out, MS made software available that would have told him so before he installed it.



  • @KenW said:

    @russ0519 said:

    I don't think you're understanding me.  I want to run it on Vista.  If I put Server 2k3 in a VM on top of Vista, I would have to pay for a Server 2k3 license.  If I install a 180 day trial, I would have to reinstall every 6 months.  I mean I can always pirate the win2k3 and we have a technet subscription which I guess could be used for this, but I think it's beside the point.  The point is that a piece of software, which is still supported by MS, won't run on Vista.  The replacement for said software has only been out for about 2 years, and if it's not unreasonable for other vendors to have patches to make their software work with Vista, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask MS to do the same thing, espeically considering it's their own software and OS.
     

    Right. And I for one want them to support my running VS2008 on MS-DOS 3.2. Same logic. "Continue to support outdated software no longer how long it has been outdated or how many newer versions of the software or OS have been released in the meantime."

    Saying "I want to run it on Vista." is ridiculous. If you want to run SQL Server on Vista, run a version that is Vista compatible. Refusing to keep up with the times is fine; just at least have the decency not to whine about the fact that everyone else on the planet has moved on even after you decided to stand still.

    And even though "the replacement for said software has only been out for about two years", that in no way is a justification. You have known forever that new versions of software are released, and that support for older versions is dropped at some point. Unless you intend for us to believe that you thought that SQL 2K was the last version of SQL Server that MS intended to release.; if that is the case, you really are out of touch.

     

    Your argument makes no sense.  VS2008 has NEVER been supported on MS-DOS 3.2.  I would, however, expect my turbo pascal from dos 6.22 days to run in Vista.  New OS's should be backward compatible.  I also didn't say to support outdated software, SQL 2k is only one version behind at this point, and at this point, it's fully supported, except on Vista.   This is just another exercise in MS monopoly, get people to upgrade, no matter the cost.  

    I don't know about other software, but I'm assuming I can run Apache 2.2, 2.0, 1.3, as well as MySQL 6, 5.1, 5 and 4 on Vista.  That's 4 different versions.  Why is it so hard for MS to make SQL 2k compatible? 


Log in to reply