http://www.sqlmag.com/authors/author/author/5541596/rsscomment/5541596en-USFri, 25 May 2012 11:14:38 GMTFri, 25 May 2012 11:14:38 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/is-microsoft-sql-server-2008-necessary-#commentsAnchorMon, 08 Oct 2007 20:01:35 GMT
I am a SQL Server DBA and developer and as such I agree with Kalman’s conclusion that ’From the standpoint of DBA, developer, BI developer and database architect, faster release cycle is the better.’ But the reality is that from the Business standpoint, a faster release cycle of SQL Server is a joke. I am still trying to convince Business of the need to upgrade from 2000 to 2005 but the objections (cost of application redevelopment, fear of downtime in a 24x7 environment, inability to conduct realistic load testing etc) are formidable. All technical presentations on the potential advantages are easily glossed over provided the current system is perceived to be ’working’. The most telling information is advising when Microsft will withdraw mainstream support for 2000.]]>RobertMon, 08 Oct 2007 20:01:35 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/is-microsoft-sql-server-2008-necessary-#commentsAnchorhttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/is-microsoft-sql-server-2008-necessary-#commentsAnchorFri, 31 Aug 2007 13:24:22 GMT
Bravo Diana! You’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ve been in this business a long time and the reality is DBA’s would love more frequent releases but businesses are typically unwilling/unable to keep up. I think Microsoft is throwing the ball in the DBA’s courts by saying "ok, here’s all the features you’ve been asking for...now you go out and drive home the need to upgrade". I like this approach. I can fight for compressed backups much more effectivly than Microsoft can at my workplace. Keep it coming MS!!!]]>hostile17Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:24:22 GMThttp://www.sqlmag.com/article/sql-server-2005/is-microsoft-sql-server-2008-necessary-#commentsAnchor