Slashdot Mirror
Vista Not Compatible With SQL Server
kiran_n sent in an article by Fortune's Owen Thomas on Vista not being compatible with SQL Server. An excerpt:
"But now 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."
if people get what they deserve for running a Server application on a Desktop OS.
I can't run SQL Server on Vista! Christmas is ruined! Thanks for nothing Microsoft >:(
Why would you run SQL Server on Vista anyway? Servers don't need shiny graphics.
"Flee at once, all is discovered."
That is called irony.
If anybody is moving critical databases to an OS that isn't even officially released yet, then they deserve to have their eyeballs poked out with hot, metal pokers, and then promptly fired.
In other breaking news, Oracle does not work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux V.5.
SQL Server is definitely not the only existing software that won't work on Vista. Of course, as always, people will swallow the incompatibilities between versions of Microsoft software much easier than they'll swallow the incompatibilities between Microsoft and non-Microsoft software. Likely, many people will express their anger over the incompatibilities, but not attach any hard consequences.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Actually, not only does it not work with SQL 2005 but it doesnt work with SQL 2000 either. In fact if you try to install SQL 2000 on vista it will try to stop you with messages saying the software has been tested to be incompatible with Vista. MS has not gone on the record that SQL 2000 will NEVER work with Vista. They want everyone to upgrade to SQL 2005 and have no plans to fix SQL 2000. If anyone hasn't used SQL 2005, they have removed DTS packages and the replacement is so horribly broken that simple things like copying a table from one database to another does not work.
Good thing there is windows server 2003 still.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
So much for Windows being great for backwards compatibility.
#!/
Mice
Think of it: Did anyone of you expect the current version of SQL Server to simply play nice with the "new and improved" Microsoft Vista OS, with all enhancements, bell and whistles? Heck, these "enhancements" took more than 5 years to implement! Way more time than was planned. Give me a break!
The article implies (and pretty much states) that Vista doesn't work with SQL server, implying that your client/server programs that depend on SQL Server won't work on Vista. They may in fact *not* work, but it has nothing to do with SQL Server!!!
The article is written by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, or they DO know what they're talking about and they wanted to get readers and ad-clicks.
If there's one thing the Windows OS team is good at, it's backwards compatibility. I recently heard that a Win32 app I wrote 10 years ago for NT 3.51 still works on Vista. The SQL Server team must have fucked up something big for their code to fail on Vista.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
The Zune also has the same problem.
Seems like Microsoft had some comunications issues between it's departments.
echo YOUR_OPINION >
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 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.
And obviously even Microsfot knows that very well. Otherwise this mistake woul be stupid in epic proportions. And while I think that MS has reached some pressy impressive hights in OS design supidity, they are not that supid....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Now I wonder what the people who said Windows really worries for backwards compability have to say now. Surely, they'd find something to say :P
Minti: What's that huge shuriken in your back?! Kin: It's the instrument of my victory.
You install the "Express" version (which is what the article is talking about) on a desktop/laptop for development purposes. For example, I'm developing a specialized information tracking application that is intended to run on my company's intranet. Our company is 100% MS shop, so we have to design for SQL Server as the back end. I'm using MS Visual Web Developer 2005 Express to create the ASP.Net "business logic" or "mddleware", and a web-based user interface. Visual Web Developer 2005 Express automatically installs SQL Server Express and integrates nicely.
Just not on Vista, it appears.
I dunno what the problem is, I am running SQL Server 2005 64 bit Standard edition on Vista Ultimate RTM. Works fine. Only using it because the application I am developing uses ODBC to the Jet engine which has now been deprecated according to MS, so I had to try something else. Seems to work fine, though I don't use it too in depth yet.
Is this a troll? If not, think, then post. Reading the article would help, too. First, there are there many advantages to having a freely redistributable database engine on desktops. You may already have applications running on your desktop that use MSDE without you realising it. And secondly, as a developer, I find it very handy to have a desktop database to test against.
Consider that one of the first groups to use a new version of Windows will be the developers (,developers, developers), and you can see that this isn't Microsoft's smartest move
(Mind you, not that I was going to upgrade to Vista anytime soon)
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
[Pointless nitpicking]
Surely, applications are (or are not) compatible with an OS, and not the other way around. An OS does (or does not) support an application.
[/Pointless nitpicking]
From TFA:"I'm talking about SQL Server 2005 Express, which is the desktop counterpart of SQL Server - not the server version."
Nobody runs MS Sql server on their desktop. We are talking about SQL server client - namely MS SQL Express.
This is about the desktop version (SQL Server Express). Companies don't run that, so this isn't much of a big deal. The regular SQL Server works fine.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
This crap is getting lame. I'm seeing more and more unfounded "articles" on here because they have to make sure they get the stories Digg has. Newsflash folks. 99% of the articles on Digg are fanboy crap. This one is no different.
What's funny is there are already numerous comments here, but apparently NONE of those judging and commenting have actually tried what the article seems to be talking about. MSSQL Server 2000 and 2005 run *just fine* under Vista. There may be some minor compatibility problems and yes, the installer warns of these, but you can click right through that. Maybe some issues crop up if you tried to use it as a full fledged server solution as is, but for development purposed they work *just fine*.
Plus, this article is talking about MSSQL Server 2005 Express, which is the local, chopped up locked down version. The rest of the versions work just fine, plus there will be, soon enough, updates to increase the compatibility.
Please keep this kind of crap off Slashdot. It's fine to love OS and hate MS. But at least get your facts *sort of* straight. This is just way off the mark.
Doesn't matter. I know of more than a few non-techies who will be affected by this issue. For one thing, most of the high end financial software is heavily dependent on SQL Server. These data-centric apps rely on it just to even function. I know for a fact that this issue will impact countless accountants, implementers, financial consultants, and not-for-profit organizations. None of these users or institutions require servers or server material. It's just the nature of their business that requires them to have such a utility. Either way, it's only a non-issue for one reason. Companies are not the same as the average end user. You and I might adopt early whereas companies are usually slow to upgrade. By the time they do upgrade to Vista and their software is Vista compatible, this SQL Server issue will be long sorted out. Upgrading one machine is expensive enough. Try upgrading a whole office worth. I know of respectable, profitable companies that are still on Win2K or WinME. The fact that this is a "server" product is of little consequence. Any OS newer than WinME is likely based off of that pro oriented Win2K foundation anyway. Whether or not the end user uses SQL Server is of less consequence than the fact that the core app should support it by its basic design. A pro-level OS should support pro-level needs, regardless of the end user's level of proficiency.
...while publicly saying they weren't. So, what else is new?
Does anyone believe for an instant that nobody at Microsoft noticed this until after the product was released? I'd bet money it was on explicit checklists of release criteria and someone overruled the technical, SQA, and project management staff because they were afraid of getting a chair thrown at them...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
For those unaware this is primarily a concern for people who develop stand alone applications that currently use SQL Express.
Why use SQL express? It's more stable and more flexible than just using ODBC to connect to an Access database file. Plus you can use all other features that you can not use in Access. It's also the defacto standard for Visual Studio 2005 developers so it gets a lot of use now adays in development. It's also far easier to use than installing the clients for Oracle or MySQL and reduces your program's foot print. (1.2MB vs 35 MB)
I actually use this, and when testing Vista didn't run into a single problem with it in it's current state. (It installed and ran fine under Beta 1 and 2 although it warned you that it could be unstable, it seems in RC and RTM they actually added it to the "Can't install" list)
And there's more than one way to connect to a database, SQL express isnt' the primary route, so the article is being VERY presumptious about impact on the industry. It's not writen by someone who knows the difference between SQL server (The server app that runs on Windows Server 2000, 2003 and uses a client program to handle the connections to a server) and the SQLExpress App (For use in stand alone programs and development environments and will not allow connections from any machine other than the host machine)
It's also amazing that the author of the article thought that you wouldn't test seperately on both platforms. He makes it sound like having to test on Xp then on Vista is a bad thing. Honestly, if you arn't testing on both and on Windows 2000, you're not doing your job right.
Is it important? Yes, it sucks to have apps that I was testing under Vista Beta 1, that I can no longer test because of the "no-install" flag. But SP to the rescue!
As for using Oracle vs MS-SQL, which is the bigger point. Well. having to deal with both at work I can tell you, MS-SQL is far easier to maintain and manage and back up. Oracle still has far too many legacy items in 9i and 10 that require "special" treatment. Not to mention that it's error reporting system is pointless 90% of the time, and we have to hand step everything we do to figure out why we're getting an error instead of a single error message that says, "OCA-XXXXX: Column can not hold data" instead of "ORA-XXX: 'DOCNAME' is too long for column." You can imagine what a pain Oracle is when you've got an SQL statement that a page long. I won't even go into how unfriendly Oracle's support is. Half the time you ask them for help the answer is "If you were an Oracle trained admin you'ld know that." How about, "If you put it in the manual, I'd already know that. Or if your people would reply to emails without the snotty tone I'd know that." Ug...
Sorry about the rant, enjoy!
It's kind of ironic that SQL won't run on Vista when Vista was originally slated to have a file system BASED ON SQL. They must have had some serious issues with that file system :)
As long as it runs Minesweeper and Solitaire, It'll do about as much as we've got a right to expect from Microsoft.
Have gnu, will travel.
Come /. You can do better than that. At least get the facts right in your summary. The article talks about SQL server client called "Sql server express" and not the whole fucking SQL server. There is a big fucking difference between SQL server and SQL server express for fuck sake.
I use MS Sql on day to day basis (vendor recommendation), and I hate to use it. But at least report the facts. There is a difference between a server and a client!!!!
At least not in the near future. For the most part companies who have workstations running SQL 2000 to access environments with servers running SQL Server 2000 are not likely to upgrade to Windows Vista anyway. There isn't really anything in Vista compared to Windows XP that justifies a company to allocate budget money to upgrade all of their workstations from XP to Vista. Microsoft will probably have to use some strong arm tactic like discontinuing updates for Windows XP. It will be a long time before most companies upgrade to Vista. In fact, most companies that get Vista along with their new machines will probably downgrade the Vista license to XP anyway. I just don't see why this is a big deal at all.
We'll make great pets
Actually, Vista is not out yet, it's just RTM! Which means it's released to manufacturing. Sure, companies can download it, but it's not meant for production use. But your average Joe cannot get it (at least not legally!). As such Vista is also not supported officially by Microsoft (at least not fully), and companies should obviously not move production machines to Vista. That would be idiotic. As far as compatibility goes, I think it's fair to expect this kind of behaviour. It was the same with Visual tudio; it doesn't work. The reason behing it AFAIK is the security that is said to be Vista. I obviously don't know how much of that is true, but If you think about it from a LOGICAL perspective instead of flamebait-one, you'll see that if they really made improvments on various low-level things than it's only logical they broke software which could potentially be unsafe.
This though raises another issue, why is SQL server unsafe, but hey... that's another issue.
I also agree with a lot of previous posters who think that such articles should not be posted to Slashdot simply because the editors think that Vista is not good. If you have a founded base for an article, great, but wrtting in sensationalist style will leave a lot of us stop reading this page. It's long since stop being news that matters and is more like Yellow pages for geek news.
I also think it's pathetic most people say "Vista sucks" before they actually even tried it out. So what if you use Linux? Who cares? So what If I use Windows? WHO CARES! But give the opposite side a benefit of doubt (which regularly fanbody don't).
Yes, this article is a bit misleading.
Anyway, SQL Server Express is pretty badass. It's a relatively light-weight, stripped-down version of its big brother. It is ridiculously easy to prototype database applications; in fact, it's probably too easy (the VB of RDBMS?). Access is a fucking joke and SQL Server is a bit heavy on the enterprise side of things; SQL Server Express is somewhere in the middle (much closer to Server than Access, thankfully) and is perfect for smaller companies or independent development (it's free). It also integrates quite well with the Visual Studio Express editions (also free).
Corporations don't use OS X because business app vendors don't write software for it. Otherwise we in corporations would deploy the shit out of OS X. It has nothing to do with the quality of OS X.
To all those guys labeling SQL Express Edition 'not corporate':
A lot of mobile applications in the business world (CRM, ERP) use the desktop versions of 'real' DBs. Oracle has an Express Edition too. Mobile in this case means notebooks or tablet PCs, allowing offline use of business applications. Sales reps in the pharma-business for example rely heavily on this DBs.
So the topic of this article IS quite important. However: MS will fix this with SP2.
sic luceat lux
SQL 2005 Express is not merely intended for development, it is a replacement for MSDE which in turn is geared as the replacement for Access as a database for local applications.
I run SQL 2005 Developer edition on my XP machine which comes with all the other SQL tools such as Analyis Services, Integration Services, and Reporting Services among other features.
-- Jason
I work for a M$ Small Business Specialist, and I have a laptop with Vista Ultimate RTM, I also have SQL Server 2005 Enterprise (with Business Intelligence services).
<rant> Short answer? I hate it.
The laptop is a 64 bit HP Turion AMD 2000+ with 2GBs RAM (which my boss considered enough to disable the swap file entirely, it barely is: my load average is 1.5GBs).
One of the reasons SQL Server 2005 craps out (even during the INSTALLATION of it) is because of the new UAC. Info.
Also, Business Intelligence (SSIS, at least) services buggy as all hell (regardless of OS):
1) You can't debug Script Tasks or Script Components (known bug).
2) With Vista, I can't run my scripts because PrecompileScriptIntoBinaryCode must be True, and when it is, I get "The script files failed to load" error. As far as I can tell, there is no known work-around for this Vista-related bug, yet.
3) Web Service Tasks (which in our case is the primary reason we're using it to begin with) only work for "some" web services (no known list of these mysterious services, of course).
4) The Script VBA editor only allows GAC library references (I ended up creating my own DLL to act as a proxy between the web service and the SSIS package), which is a pain in itself.
The closest "working" dev environment you can have in Vista with VS2005/SQL Server 2005 is with VS2005 running as Administrator, and using SQL Server Management Studio purely for access to remote DBs (running on win2k3, of course). That's IF you exclude SQL Server Business Intelligence Services. This essentially means: Vista is GREAT, if you work around or avoid all the new features.
</rant>
Is anyone here currently hiring?
Wow. Okay, the rant went a tad off-track, now for the positives of Vista:
1) "Flip 3D": How innovative, but to be fair, the rolodex style is cool.
2) ???
3) Aero makes Minesweeper looks cooler!$!$!
how is babby formed?
Nope, not a troll. As someone who had to deal with the aftermath of sensitive data getting lost as well as someone who has to handle electronic data subpoena requests, the last thing we approve in our corporation are applications storing data in local databases. With the Dec. 1 change in federal court rules e-discovery, application developers are going to see a push-back from customers regarding storing data locally. Locally stored information raises the total cost of ownership of those applications astronomically as soon as a subpoena comes in.
The mess with a blank sa password on MSDE 2000 and earlier (recall SQL Slammer) was a real wake-up call to having databases locally. Throw in the loss of PII from lost laptops plus the Dec. 1 discovery changes and local databases (and spreadsheets) are going to be a tough sell.
As a developer, you know you need to be sensitive to the needs of your customers. Developers who do things that make their job easier and their customer's jobs harder or more costly are going to find less and less business.
You have to remember, a lot of uses of MSDE involve local applications keeping their local data in SQL Server, rather than flat files or some custom format. This is often data that currently doesn't make sense to keep centrally.
However, I understand what you're saying about local databases, but I am dubious that the changes to US law will have any major effect. It's because of something you said:
"As a developer, you know you need to be sensitive to the needs of your customers. Developers who do things that make their job easier and their customer's jobs harder or more costly are going to find less and less business."
While the management may be serious about legal compliance, persuading the rank-and-file to be as dedicated is largely going to be a lost cause. Unless, of course, being compliant is at least as easy as being non-compliant.
The reason Excel is so widely used is precisely because it satisfies a need. It fits a niche people didn't really know existed when spreadsheets were first conceived. If you want to wean people off storing their data locally, you (I guess I mean we) have to make storing information the right way at least as easy as doing it the wrong way. And it just isn't, yet.
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
I wouldn't suggest any business use OS X. I like the platform, and consider it to be about the best available, but one thing Microsoft should have taught us is that it's a really bad idea to rely on a singly source for anything. Always make sure you have at least two competing suppliers for every critical bit of equipment. IBM knew this when they made the PC, and so they forced Intel to license the 8088 designs to AMD. Unfortunately, they believed that operating systems were a commodity, and so didn't insist on a second source for the OS...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Maybe I'm just being rude here, but isn't it a low priority to run an SQL Server on a desktop OS ? Yes I know it's for developers but really, if you're developing enterprise software, maybe you should use an enterprise OS, like say... Windows Server 2003 (keep your M$ flames to yourself). "No," I hear you say, "I need to ensure my code is functional on Vista". No, you don't. Your server application needs to be functional on what the client will be using. Last time I checked, serious IT administrators weren't jumping on bleeding edge operating systems to run business-critical apps that ran just fine on the old stuff.
Vista is intended as a desktop. Longhorn is intended as a server, and guess what: it's not ready yet. What will you do, oh poor ill-equipped idiot database consultant ? Well I guess you'll just have to keep your current OS for development; you probably need to get a new computer to run Vista decently anyway.. one development box, one Vista testing box. Surely a skilled enterprise software developer can afford that, yes ? Hell I'd go all the way and build a true server just like the client has, with a real SQL Server license. That way you don't end up with idiot consultant design errors like "select *" bandwidth abuse, that isn't necessarily obvious when client and server are the same machine, but are cruelly sluggish when that same query flies over 100mb ethernet (or worse). Hey I don't care, it's YOUR career.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
if this isn't the case, WTF have the MS SQL people been doing while their own company was developing the OS? Did they not have enough time? Not enough information on how it was going to work? Hardly. It's all in the plan to force people to purchase an update to the next version of MS Product X which will work with their 'new' operating system getting preloaded on OEM systems.
This is their MO and always has.
I agree that the presense of a GUI is completely irrelevant, but:
concept of server vs. client. (Plus X-11 and related display technologies reverse the terms anyhow, so they really have no meaning.
Not true: X11 kept the terms the same.
The X server that you're running is indeed a server: it provides a service to others over the network, who can connect to it. The X clients you're using are definitely clients: if you think xclock is a server, can you start it from your SysV init and then connect to it?
It only seems backwards in this era because everybody is used to thinking "my little PC is always the client, and the big Unix box down the street is always the server", but that's not true -- just an incorrect generalization.
If there's something that made "client" and "server" lose much of their meaning, it's P2P services: every process is both a client and a server.
Sure, XNA is not on the same level of need basis, but I'd like to do some stuff for the XBLA, and can't unless I install Win XP again...
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
Many companies rely on SQL Server Express or Workgroup for mobile salesforce applications like Siebel, Pivotal, Sage, and even MS CRM. http://www.destinationcrm.com/articles/default.asp ?ArticleID=2352
yes! you heard right. If you run Linux on your Linksys wireless router and try and use the router by itself to browse slashdot you will not see anything! Of course there is no browser on the router so this is true of trying to browse anything, but the headline wouldnt be near as catchy.
Give me a break - the headline is FUD, the story is FUD. Are you that desperate to find things to bash Microsoft about?
Microsoft is dieing.
MSDE is not just used for local development -- its used as a local database for many Windows applications (Sony Acid Pro 5 comes to mind). I personally know of two legal applications we support that will not work under Vista if this is the case with MSDE 2000/2005.
body massage!
I'm one of those people who reads /. daily but never responds. I'm a hard core Microsoft guy. I like thier server products. I like thier programming tools and I like thier business software. I won't appologize for that. I also don't like the Linux operating system or other various *nix operating systems. I'm capapble of using them. I configure them. I sell them, but it's just not my cup of tea.
/. to get an idea of the pulse of the Linux community. I often enjoy the interesting opinions and I've seriously gleaned alot of knowledge from the articles here. This post however takes the cake for massive FUD and seriously has no place.
/.ers don't have the ability to step back from thier passionate position on a completely absurd position paper. Seriously peeps... this is the best you can do today?
I read
For starters as someone previously pointed out. Software is designed to support a platform, platforms aren't designed to support software. Vista is the platform. SQL Server is software. Now that Vista is RTM, the SQL Server team will revisit thier software and release a service pack that enables it to run on the new platform. This isn't rocket science or news or anything earth shattering. It's just the way things are...
As you all know. Software is a stack. When you change the bottom of the stack, sometimes you have to retool upper layers of the stack. I suspect that if a new Linux kernel came out tomorrow the majority of current Linux applications and server products would cease to work without a recompilation and some changes to lower level API calls.
The same thing happened when Windows XP shipped. SQL Server 2000 wouldn't run properly on it. Likewise with Windows Server 2003. This isn't because Microsoft writes bad software. Again, it's because if B depends on A and A changes, B will probably need to change also. The greater the change to A, the lower the chances of B working.
Businesses know this and expect it. I highly doubt that any competent IT department is clamering to get the latest and greatest OS onto the desktop of thier 'customers'. I suspect that competent IT departments are installing the Vista builds into a lab environment. Testing internally developed applications against it as well as testing 'common operating environment' [COE] applications on top of it.
I'm sorry if the author of TFA doesn't undestand how software works and how platforms affect software. I'm sorry if Microsoft finally bit the bullet and sacrificed some initial backwards compat in the out-of-box configuration in exchange for an enhanced security model. I'm shocked that
First...it's Microsoft's flagship MP3 player...now it's at least two server products from Microsoft. I can understand third-party products not working yet with Vista...but not current or your own products six years old or less. Looks like another cluster**** on Microsoft's part.
Can't wait to hear all the new buyers of their new Vista PC's start bawling when they bought their $300 PC with Vista & not being able to run their old software or any of the new DRM boondoogles. Am so happy I'm not in tech support anymore & having to deal with all the boo-hoo stories about users not knowing about the overpriced digital handcuffs they just bought.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
Not stated in the article summary is that SQL Server is a Microsoft product.
Before I realized that, I wasn't sure exactly why this was MS's problem.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
fromr eqs.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/sys
Vista Home Basic and above (SQL Express SP1 and SQL Express Advanced SP2)
Here's the deal. SQL Server 2000 is not supported on Vista, this includes MSDE. For SQL Server 2005 SP1, only Express Edition is supported on Vista. The other editions must wait for SP2 to be officially supported.
Corporations don't use OS X because business app vendors don't write software for it
And business app vendors don't write software for OSX because Corporations
don't use OSX.
Some server software might not work on an OS that is in development stage.
Later it has also been announced that the Sun is hot. We're waiting for more breaking news...
Maybe I don't fully understand (on 5th beer while reading/typing) but I have Vista Beta RC1 (build 5600)
running in vmware with SQL Express 2005 and having no problem serving simple asp applications on another vm, odbc, etc.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
This has nothing to do with bugs in Vista. Microsoft could have waited fifteen more years and this problem would still persist. The problem lies in the security model Microsoft is migrating towards; one which jails everything by default regardless of the current user. This is a new world for most applications and it is inevitable that some will break at one point or another.
Microsoft fully acknowledged this fact quite a while ago pertaining to SQL Server 2005 Express Edition. The problem doesn't cause the software to flat-out not work, as one of my development laptops sitting next to me can testify. The problem can cause certain portions of the functionality to behave differently or fail. Microsoft has identified these issues and will have fixes made publically shortly to remedy them. There are many other known Microsoft products with similar issues, including Visual Studio, where the sheer nature of interprocess debugging violates the new security specifications.
Of course, Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Their origins are in a CP/M clone designed to function specifically on the smallest of hardware which was totally incapable of any notion hardware abstraction, multitasking or process separation. They've managed to migrate from that to a mainframe-derived kernel with deep levels of security all the while maintaining an incredible level of backward compatibility. But it is impossible to move forward without breaking legacy. It's not possible to implement a protected kernel without preventing user mode applications from direct hardware access on demand. It is not possible to emulate a total "superuser" environment under the confines of a regular user. Windows does what it can under emulation or bizarre trickery to ensure a very large pool of existing applications continue to function as advertized, but there is always a limit.
There is no other system where this is the case. With the move to Intel Apple threw out access to every single piece of software written prior to the conversion to PowerPC, only ten years prior. Microsoft would be crucified if they attempted such a move. I will agree that Microsoft does take it quite a bit too far. They'd probably be better off slamming the security door shut and locking down every user on the machine, all existing programs be damned. But to the majority of the market who would simply see their software failing under the new operating system, that is not a reasonable solution.
Exactly. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. That's why Apple isn't even trying for that market.
I agree with you in principle. However, since Apple is nowhere near in danger of monopolizing the PC market, and because the move to Intel removes the problem of Apple's sources of hardware supplies drying up, I don't think the single-vendor aguement in this case would be a real threat to an organization. The problem for a business using OS X would start the day the company wanted to run Business Objects, a web-based app that requires IE, etc.
Kinda reminds me of Super Street Fighter Turbo 2 Zero EX : Third Strike
SQL 2000 doesn't run on Windows XP either. It brings up an error that you're trying to install a server product on a Desktop OS.
Surprise, it doesn't run on Vista, another DESKTOP OS. Wake me up when it doesn't run on Longhorn server, that would be news.
I run SQL 2005 (SP1) on Vista RTM, and on Windows XP professional. They might not be supported (after all they are server product, and those are workstation OSs), but they work just fine.
Actually SQL 2005 (SP1) gave me a few problems on Vista, I only got it to run as a local admin, probably because I don't fully understand the new Vista security model yet. But this is okay for me, I just want to develop on Vista anyway.
This is a lame post. There are lots of compatilbilites between lots of MS products, what do you expect when you have so many?
The same is true of every Linux flavor, all IBM products, and even Apple. It will surely be true of Google before too long with all those software guys they hired to write whatever they wanted, however they want.
Nothing too sensational here. SQL Server Express does not work because it assumes that the user has admin privileges on the machine, there is already a fix for this, the problem is expressed here http://blogs.msdn.com/sqlexpress/archive/2006/10/1 1/getting-things-working-on-vista-aka-dealing-with -user-account-control.aspx
Sumary:
In short, SQL Express assumes you're an administrator on the computer in order to give you permissions to do things. As part of the default installation, we create Logins for the Builtin\Administrator user and the Builtin\Administrators group and assign both of these Logins to the SysAdmin Fixed Server Role. This way, everyone on the computer who is part of the Administrators group, is automatically a SysAdmin. This does not work in Vista.
DB2 works with Vista, but SQL Server doesn't.
The "Oops Department."
A pro-level OS should support pro-level needs, regardless of the end user's level of proficiency.
They do. Microsoft just has nothing that qualifies as ''pro-level''. Instead they compensate with marketing and monopoly. Those that fall for it, get what they deserve.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If you want to run a server, install 2003 server & then 2005 SQL server. 2003 server should talk to Vista. Interfaces & Services are taking a bigger footprint than ever before i.e.: XP has a history of more Patches & KB's than Win2k3. Why not flip it & push all of your Wintel apps over MyODBC connectors w/ MySQL in the linux distro of your choice on the backend? :P
Got Sudoku?
-SB
Obviously the probability that you can make upgrades to core pieces of an OS and not break SOMETHING approaches 0 as the number of things that are possible to break increases. But MS has actually done an exceptional job of keeping the percentage of old things that work on new OS high (feel free to try to prove me wrong with your own calculations with regard to the percent compatibility of other major OS). MS also produces some of the most correct (in terms of complying with things like limited user restrictions, etc.) programs I've ever seen (now if they could only get a handle on those security problems...).
:P
Thus it's alarming that so many major programs are failing on Vista. With as much effort as they put into maintaining backward compatibility with the most obscure programs, it's rather pathetic that they didn't notice compatibility problems in one of their own flagship products. Maybe MS is changing, after all (who was it that wanted that, again?)
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
You have it nailed quite well. We made compliance as easy as non-compliance by forcing virtually 100% of all users, IT included, to run as Restricted Users. They simply cannot install anything without explicit approval. Yes, we had to make some permissions changes on certain folders but by and large it was less excruciating than any of us thought. It also knocked adware and spyware problems out of the box. We used to have three or four laptops FedEx'ed in each week and last year it was six for the entire year.
:-)
What forced this move was our first SarBox audit for unapproved software programs. On 1,100 computers, we found 900+ such programs. Last year we found 20 and they were all because of local IT staff giving inappropriate elevated privileges. That move now reflects on their performance reviews.
We also bounced a half-dozen well known vendors out the door because their applications required local admin rights and we simply were not going to do that. Some SQL apps were bounced because they required SQL authentication instead of Windows auth or because their apps required running under the sa account. We "just said no" to such apps.
We did have two interesting issues where line people evaluated apps at home and signed contracts on their own. When the apps didn't work correctly in a lockdown environment or did not work correctly through an authenticating proxy server, we refused to make exceptions and made them find alternatives. They also had to either eat the original contract or negotiate their way out of it.
We've moved about half the corporation into a centralized environment with Riverbed WAN acceleration appliances. Our goal is to eliminate all local servers at the plants. We're also using Group Policies to ban Outlook PST files and people have to keep their email within limits. This one is our biggest pushback issue, but the Law Dept. is solidly behind it.
We'll work with anybody to meet their business needs but some people simply think it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. That doesn't play any more. The costs are simply too high.
If you are using MS to run a web site, just don't upgrade operating systems until the upgraded server is released. Say about 2010.
Or, you can buy a nice Suse system from your Microsoft rep that will do the job nicely until the full MS solution is available. Who know, by that time, MS may own Suse outright.
Wow!! How things change. Just last year I never thought I'd see MS selling Linux. Makes me wonder how long it'll be before we see the flagship products able to run in Linux directly. The next few years are going to be INTERESTING. Windows for Linux, Office, Hmmm. I wonder what Stallman will think of that??
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
This article is misleading. You cannot run the SQL Server 2000 components on the desktop, that is true, but not very many users do this or need this except a small number of developers testing SQL in the environment. Vista still allows the ODBC and OLE connections needed to SQL Servers with the caveat that all applications should be tested for compatibility on a new OS (applications requiring a connection to SQL or any application). The information for this article was probably put out by LINUX or Novell initially as a major issue when it really isn't. Quote from the article; "Microsoft's oversight with SQL is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect Vista to appear in the workplace until 2008." The entire article makes this seem as a huge impact to users and is full of half truths without all of the facts, just as most Microsoft bashing articles are.
Many companies involved in BDD rollouts are limiting applications that are allowed to be deployed to the desktop, server applications being one of them. EMC has created an application called VMWare many may have heard of or Microsoft's VPC for just this purpose. There is no reason to hold up a Vista BDD Rollout for a few developers. This is good information to have as long as it is used in context when evaluating exceptions. There are always exceptions when doing a BDD rollout and if this is the only one or the worst, it is actually a selling point for going to Vista.
You cannot please everyone all the time. If you are the exception to the rule and want to run SQL Server on your desktop and not follow best practices for developement or testing then Vista is not for you.