Visual Studio Integration
-
Yukon has quite a few changes in it.
That may be the understatement of the year, but besides a changing of the core engines for the database product, there's the integration of the CLR and accompanying security changes. In fact the changing of the whole security model is a major change since it's radically different from previous versions. There are also brand new tools, new high availability and T-SQL language enhancements and more. It's a major release.
Add to that the use of .NET 2.0, also still in Beta, and we're talking a monumental set of changes.
Glancing through eWeek, it appears the the futures of Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server are now moving in lockstep. The latest news is that the VS product has slipped to the second half of the year from summer and will ship at the same time as Yukon. They're saying that these are now "late year" products, which seems like Q4 to me. A November release would be 5 years after SQL Server 2000 shipped, so a late year release wouldn't be that bad.
Personally I wish they hadn't branded either product until they were at the Beta 3 stage. Now they've imposed a deadline on themselves of Dec 31, which may be before the product is fully shaken down. I have confidence in the development team, which has put out the best database platform time and time again, but a major release is a big deal. Having fundamental issues with it from the start will not be good.
But hey, we've still got another week to the "self-imposed" deadline of Q1 for Beta 3 that the development team imposed upon themselves. Anyone want to take that bet?
Steve Jones
-
As we all know the product as Yukon why not stick with that name?
When you brand a product by the year of release even the name has obsolescence. If a year should be included why not use the year of intended replacement. SQL Server 2010 anyone?
-
I agree with David. A year should never be included in the name of a product, unless by its very definition, it will be obsolete at the end of that year, and the next year's product will then be available, as in tax software. Windows 95, 98, 2000, SQL 2000... but a couple of better examples where the name seemed really good at the time... Gateway 2000, or 20th Century Fox. Both names are now obsolete. Of course Gateway 2000 dropped the 2000 and became Gateway. But, as far as I know, 20th Century Fox is still behind the times.
Steve
-
This sounds like a marketing discussion. The bottom line is that the product(s) deliver the intended business functionality that the market and users need. The could call it "SQL 1984" if they so choose. I do not care so long as it works correctly and provides the needed functionality for my applications. Just being a pragmatist.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
-
So, the pre-production name would be "Big Brother"????
Steve
-
I would agree it's marketing, bad marketing maybe.
But XP reports in as Windows 5 under the covers !!
I think Win2k does also, haven't checked Win2003 yet.
KlK -
Windows XP SP 1 reports "Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]" when typing 'ver' at the command prompt. The properties on My Computer say "Windows XP Professional Version 2002"...
-
C:\WINNT\system32\os2 ?????????
Look in the C:\WINNT\system32\os2\DLL folder and see a DLL called doscalls.dll
Write out a million times "I must not be cynical".
You know morale is low when the company does a roll call AFTER a fire drill to make sure you all come back into the building.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply