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."

Comments

If anybody...

[NineNine]

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.

Re:If anybody...

[_mythdraug_]

Beg to differ, but the OS has been released to volume customers for about 3 weeks now.

Other Software

[RAMMS EIN]

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.

Re:Other Software

[RAMMS EIN]

``From a buisness perspective, if you stop using Microsoft's operating system you'll have dozens (or possibly hundreds) of applications which are either not supported or not functional on Linux/Unix/OSX; these applications represent Millions of dollars in licences or development that would have to be re-spent immediately.''

While I appreciate your concern, the situation is much more complicated than you present it. First of all, there is no need to spend millions of dollars _immediately_; with a lot of software being cross-platform, and many Windows APIs being implemented in Wine, switching can be done gradually. Secondly, just because the software you have been using cost you millions of dollars, doesn't mean the software you will be using also costs that much. Thirdly, although there are certainly costs to switching, the software you switch too might actually lower your costs (licensing, maintenance, downtime, ...), providing a long-term benefit (and the sooner you switch, the better. ;-) ). Finally, Microsoft forces you to switch, too (although it's often referred to as "upgrading"); that's what this whole Slashdot discussion is about. None of this means that switching is a good idea, but it does mean that saying "switching costs millions of dollars" is short-sighted, and would only produce the best result by accident.

``From a personal standpoint, I (like most people) am lazy and don't want to switch operating systems and learn another office suite unless I have to.''

I think that's right on: the software most people are using works well enough for them. Or, alternatively, it was hard enough learning to deal with this software. Why, then, take the effort of investigating alternatives? Especially if others have already done so, and you can ask around, and people will tell you that the alternatives are only for geeks; too hard for the average user, and not up to business tasks. Don't get me wrong: this is a perfectly good attitude. It would be unreasonable to expect everybody to take an interest in software and spend time and effort evaluating all software for themselves. Most people have other interests and better things to do with their time. Laziness is a virtue. Of course, that doesn't mean that people couldn't do much better, software-wise, if they tried.

``Personally, I have spent most of my time convincing companies to switch to web-based development using Java and Hibernate with a focus on abstracting the product from both the Operating System and the Database;''

Do keep in mind, though, that anything that offers to abstract from a platform really is but another platform. Instead of tying your product to Windows and SQL Server (or GNU and MySQL, or what have you), you're tying your product to Java and Hibernate. These come with their own advantages and disadvantages.

Backwards compatibility

[pebs]

So much for Windows being great for backwards compatibility.

This is expected

[bogaboga]

Since when has Microsoft rolled out a new operating system that is [100%] compatible with its own existing software? Even though I am no geek, I expected updated versions of existing Microsoft software to come Vista. So to me, this is expected.

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!

FUD at its best

[ThinkFr33ly]

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.

Re:FUD at its best

[thona]

::Vista has NOT been made available to the public Ah yes. So - what are you getting when you buy vista now, there: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/13/HNmscomp usa_1.html More info: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=21919 It is not in wide distribution, but it is out. You an walk intoa CompUsa NOW and get a copy. ::It was made available on MSDN / Windows Connect for EARLY ADOPTERS Bullshit. It was made available. That simple. SOME are early in adopting, but it is the real RTM version. Sure, driver support through third party is crap, but that is not going to change inthe next 30 days. It is the RTM version. The versionsin the shop will be identical to the released images- it just now takes time to get them manufactured and into the distribution. ::If your company runs full fledged SQL Server on desktops, they're morons for multiple reasons. So, I am a moron? Let me get this straight - how else am I supposed to make SQL Server development woork wih reporting services and/or SSIS on my laptop without internet connection? Not all uses of a server product are - for prouduction use. ::And your response to my post showed your idiocy, not mine Let me guess -yyou are american and thus do not value the reality.

Re:Why?

[BradleyUffner]

How about developers who need to write vista applications that talk to databases? It helps to have a locally running copy of SQL server if you are disconnected from the network so that you can still work.

Re:I can't help but wonder...

[Alioth]

Well, since even Windows server is a desktop OS (it's a server, why is everything done via a GUI and no decent way to script half the things you need to do on it?) it's perfectly reasonable, really. The very name 'Windows' gives it away as a desktop OS, even if they try and tack on the word 'Server'.

Lame

[nwoolls]

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.

Re:Lame

[Shados]

Worse is, if someone DARED say something similar about Linux, everyone would be up and arm against them. Like if we saw a "MySQL doesn't work on the new version of Ubuntu!" or something. People would flip, -EVEN- if MySQL was only in some ultra-unstable-experimental-of-doom branch.

Re:I can't help but wonder...

[msobkow]

I'd agree except that most boxen now use some sort of GUI for the admins, though the older and more experienced admins still live in command shells and scripting (automation!)

But the question of what constitutes a "server" is normally a question of hardware capacity, not artificial restrictions imposed by multi-layer bundling. The prices for AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Oracle, Sybase, etc. (i.e. both OS and core services) are based on CPU capacity, number of users, and other metrics that have nothing to do with some vague concept of server vs. client. (Plus X-11 and related display technologies reverse the terms anyhow, so they really have no meaning. I prefer digraphs -- data/command comes from here and goes there.)

The add-on modules for most operating systems and products are feature add-ons -- GIS data type package, enhanced application integration/administration packages, developer/compiler package, etc. The only operating system I know of that clips out all the shell scripting, scheduling services, and other components needed to do real work is Windows.

There are no "desktop" or "home" editions of Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, VM/MVS, AS400, or other systems because the concept is irrational. You run the same binaries on a two-way HP-UX desktop as on an 8-32 way SMP server. It's just minor configuration variables that change to tune performance; Microsoft is the only one to try to make you pay for those tweaks.

Or you can download a package that will apply the registry changes and make your desktop act like a "server". To me that just highlights the inanity of the marketting distinctions.

SQL Express vs SQL Server

[swalters1]

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!

Re:actually far worse

[Zebra_X]

Copy database objects from sql server 2000 never really worked correctly either. Under very simple scenarios it works, but when there are foreign key constraints and many related tables sql server does not usually copy the objects in the correct order, and you get resulting constraint violations which ends up faling the package. My experience has been that it is one of the least reliable ways of moving tables and data between systems. To be frank, basing your release process or relying on it to propogate changes from one environment to another isn't great. No other system would you be able to use this process. Just use SQL scripts and insert scripts like everyone else.

For the most part SSIS is a huge improvement over DTS, it is also much more scalable, and now has it's own dedicated runtime. Components for SSIS are also C# components as opposed to com components under DTS. Theoretically if you code is written well, you can reuse parts of it inside a 2005 DB with the CLR enabled.

"Horribly broken" is really a rather exagerated claim. No one's software is perfect.

Also, it's rather rude to call individuals "liars" when you don't have any evidence that that individual is in fact lying.

Re:Must have really bad code

[Richard_at_work]

Uh, no, Windows is not good at backwards compatibility: the entire OS has changed radically over the last 15 years. There are some compatibility hacks, but old software does not work well on newer versions of Windows.

In contrast, 20 year old UNIX software compiles, runs, and takes full advantage of modern hardware; the APIs have hardly changed because UNIX got them right in the first place. That includes the window system. You might want to try that sometime, in practice its not so clear cut on the UNIX side. And yes, I have experience in this area.

Re:I can't help but wonder...

[jimicus]

Why the hell should we care about the compatability virtues of a workstation SQL server?

How about because if you were developing code for me, and I found you testing your code against the production database on a real server, you'd be out the door so fast your head would spin?

(Though TBH I wouldn't give you access to the production database anyhow, but that's by the by.)

Re:I can't help but wonder...

[Assmasher]

So I guess this means you test your code against a different version of SQL Server database than runs in production, eh? If you did that at our company "you'd be out the door so fast your head would spin."

This is why people have QA servers to test against. I certainly hope, for the sake of your company, you don't just test against your workstation and then place it in production. LOL.