http://www.sqlmag.com/authors/author/author/5036456/rsscomment/5036456en-USFri, 25 May 2012 10:27:39 GMTFri, 25 May 2012 10:27:39 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorSat, 18 Oct 2008 10:46:22 GMT
SQL Server Reporting Services Report Builder 2.0 is HERE! http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9f783224-9871-4eea-b1d5-f3140a253db6 On October 17th, Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Report Builder 2.0 was released as part of the SQL Server 2008 Feature Pack. The download provides a stand-alone installer for Report Builder 2.0. If you have used Report Builder 1.0 in SQL Server 2005, you may have already experienced significant productivity gains using this solution to quickly generate sophisticated reports. Report Builder 2.0 supports the full capabilities of SQL Server 2008 Reporting Services including flexible data layout, data visualizations, and richly formatted text features. It also delivers an even more intuitive report authoring environment for business and power users with a Microsoft Office look and feel - plus: • Easy to use wizards for creating table, matrix and chart data regions • Support for directly opening and editing reports stored on the report server • Support for using server resources such as shared data sources • A query designer for Microsoft SQL Server data sources • Ability to read from all SQL Server Reporting Services data sources]]>SabrenaSat, 18 Oct 2008 10:46:22 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/using-a-custom-data-extension-to-solve-a-reporting-services-problem-#commentsAnchorWed, 19 Dec 2007 13:17:34 GMT
This is GREAT!! Is there any where to find the code/extension it self ?? Would help a lot!]]>YonatanK Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:17:34 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/using-a-custom-data-extension-to-solve-a-reporting-services-problem-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/what-s-the-best-way-to-carve-up-a-san-#commentsAnchorTue, 27 Nov 2007 09:18:00 GMT
Missinga to do list.]]>GuyTue, 27 Nov 2007 09:18:00 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/san/what-s-the-best-way-to-carve-up-a-san-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/business-intelligence/a-total-bi-solution-from-dell-and-microsoft#commentsAnchorTue, 13 Nov 2007 14:38:21 GMT
Too much marketing information, not enough details on the solution and challenges that came up during the testing. Also, this clip sounded very scripted. When was this presentation recorded, I haven’t paid attention to Microsoft and Dell’s announcement, so I don’t know what the date was for this recording. Some of the information presented later in the presentation was a little more technical and on-target with information that wasn’t just a marketing spin.]]>JEFFTue, 13 Nov 2007 14:38:21 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/business-intelligence/a-total-bi-solution-from-dell-and-microsoft#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/business-intelligence/a-total-bi-solution-from-dell-and-microsoft#commentsAnchorTue, 13 Nov 2007 08:20:51 GMT
I’m not sure I understand this article - an article of 15 words with no content. The title I found interesting, the article has nothing in it. Am I missing something?]]>simonwTue, 13 Nov 2007 08:20:51 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/business-intelligence/a-total-bi-solution-from-dell-and-microsoft#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/can-t-wait-for-sql-server-2008-#commentsAnchorTue, 06 Nov 2007 09:24:08 GMT
Great article - I believe that Douglas meant liberates in the 3rd paragraph instead of librates...]]>JASONTue, 06 Nov 2007 09:24:08 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/can-t-wait-for-sql-server-2008-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/back-to-back-sql-server-2008-ctps#commentsAnchorMon, 27 Aug 2007 12:29:25 GMT
Very informative]]>RaymondMon, 27 Aug 2007 12:29:25 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/back-to-back-sql-server-2008-ctps#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/do-you-know-your-mvps-#commentsAnchorTue, 17 Apr 2007 18:37:07 GMT
I just want to know why MS doesn’t have any SQL Server MVPs that are fans of Access Data Projects we need some sort of representation; having a couple of ADP MVPs might really help the market ADP Uber Alles -Aaron]]>AaronTue, 17 Apr 2007 18:37:07 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/do-you-know-your-mvps-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorSat, 04 Nov 2006 02:56:15 GMT
Could be more indepth - config examples would be nice.]]>hughesg4a Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:56:15 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/business-intelligence/microsoft-business-intelligence-part-2-the-2007-office-system#commentsAnchorMon, 24 Apr 2006 08:45:20 GMT
I work for a BI firm which also processes large mailing lists. I cannot understand why microsoft refuses to extend excel row capacaties beyond 65,535 rows. We are entering the era of 64 bit computing and stuck with 16 bit capacity spreadsheets]]>SeanMon, 24 Apr 2006 08:45:20 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/business-intelligence/microsoft-business-intelligence-part-2-the-2007-office-system#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorThu, 27 Oct 2005 04:26:37 GMT
Quote: "You can override this limitation with the addition of /PAE and /3GB switches to the boot.ini file, which changes the server to physical address extension (PAE) mode and lets your non-kernel applications use up to 3GB of memory. Keep in mind that all of a server’s applications—including those we forget about, such as antivirus or monitoring software—must share those 3GB." Isn’t it so, that by using the /3Gb switch, you increase the user memory part for each process (which is not shared between applications) to 3Gb, and decrease the kernel memory part (which is shared between all applications) to 1 Gb? Gé Brander]]>ge@familie-brander.nl Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:26:37 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorWed, 31 Aug 2005 00:14:49 GMT
Its really good and informative. Thanks a lot]]>Anonymous User Wed, 31 Aug 2005 00:14:49 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/analysis-services-integrates-with-reporting#commentsAnchorFri, 15 Jul 2005 20:00:11 GMT
Sorry I missed your expectations... of course this is not a technical article but rather commentary that is included in the UPDATE email newsletter and then later posted on the web for reference. Each month in my commentary I have been talking with each of the BI dev teams to get a different ’take’ on SQL Server 2005 functionality. As I say in most of my commentaries, please let me know what what I have missed or you want to know about. douglas@solidqualitylearning.com]]>DOUGLASFri, 15 Jul 2005 20:00:11 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/analysis-services-integrates-with-reporting#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/sql-server-2005-s-etl-tool-integration-services#commentsAnchorFri, 15 Jul 2005 19:47:42 GMT
I am sorry you feel that way. Microsoft has not been behind way behind the tool vendors in the ETL space, it has never been in the ETL space until SSIS. The author did not actually say the comment you are bashing but rather Erik Veerman who just built a massive ETL for one of the world’s largest book resellers using SSIS for the ETL development and after using features like the SCD wizard, Erik firmly believes it is a differentiating feature. Either way, don’t take my word for it, take it out for a spin, learn the product and make your own call... but not until you, as a last step, do a cost comparison and skill-set comparison.]]>DOUGLASFri, 15 Jul 2005 19:47:42 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/sql-server-2005-s-etl-tool-integration-services#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorFri, 15 Jul 2005 19:44:20 GMT
Reporting Services will not be an Ad-hoc Analysis or "slice and dice" tool, it will continue to fill the role of Enterprise Reporting and enter the role of Ad-hoc Reporting with Report Builder... Microsoft will continue to rely heavily on third party tools from independent software vendors (ISVs).]]>DOUGLASFri, 15 Jul 2005 19:44:20 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/analysis-services-integrates-with-reporting#commentsAnchorWed, 29 Jun 2005 07:16:02 GMT
Indeed, a crap article.]]>Anonymous User Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:16:02 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/analysis-services-integrates-with-reporting#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorFri, 13 May 2005 01:18:17 GMT
Be sure to remember, that if you plan on deploying x64 systems, Windows server 2003 x64 doesn’t for the time being support .NET 1.1 - that means e.g. no Reporting Services. ]]>JacobFri, 13 May 2005 01:18:17 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorThu, 05 May 2005 13:06:34 GMT
You bring up some excellent points. One thing I would like to point out, however, is that if an organization already has multiple 32-bit servers in place in either an active-passive or active-active setup, there is a way to go to N+1 without the "gotchas" and without upgrading everything to 64-bit. Simply make the "+1" server, i.e. the failover server, a 64-bit server which would be able to handle several 32-bit active clusters failing at the same time. True, they would be relagating their most powerful hardware to a role where it is usually not (hopefully never) used, but that is cheaper than going to an all 64-bit setup or multiple active-passive clusters and avoids the gotchas of the active-active scenario. Andrew Steitz acsteitz_(a)_yahoo.com]]>STEVENThu, 05 May 2005 13:06:34 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/performance/betting-on-64-bit#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorWed, 04 May 2005 04:56:09 GMT
will there be a slice and dice tool in reporting services 2005? we are using Business Objects Olap Intelligence (Old Crystal Analysis) fro this purpose but want to replace it with MS reporting services.]]>Anonymous User Wed, 04 May 2005 04:56:09 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorWed, 04 May 2005 04:56:09 GMT
will there be an end client tool for slicing and dicing olap data contained in analysis services 2005 via reporting services 2005? we are using Business Objects Olap Intelligence (Old Crystal Analysis) for this purpose but want to replace it with any same new product from MS, might be Report Builder? or tell me if Report Designer in Business Inteeligent Studio can do this?]]>Anonymous User Wed, 04 May 2005 04:56:09 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorWed, 27 Apr 2005 10:41:36 GMT
"...and be on the lookout for SQL Server 2005 Beta 3 to get started with Reporting Services and Report Builder." I thought they (MS) wasn’t going to release Beta 3? I thought they were just going to do CTP’s until release.]]>MikeWed, 27 Apr 2005 10:41:36 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server/sql-server-2005-reporting-services-worth-the-upgrade#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/analysis-services-integrates-with-reporting#commentsAnchorMon, 04 Apr 2005 16:57:34 GMT
crap article]]>Anonymous User Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:57:34 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/analysis-services-integrates-with-reporting#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/sql-server-2005-s-etl-tool-integration-services#commentsAnchorFri, 01 Apr 2005 15:09:19 GMT
This article is stupid, especially the comment "The SCD Wizard is definitely a feature that will separate Microsoft from the rest of the ETL pack." Microsoft is way behind all the tool vendors, and the author of this article clearly hasn’t been involved in large data warehouse development efforts.]]>Anonymous User Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:09:19 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/sql-server-2005-s-etl-tool-integration-services#commentsAnchor