January 30, 2008 at 8:21 am
PatrickSimons (1/30/2008)
The users don't care if we are using SQL2005 they just want the tools they need to do their job.
Hi Judith,
that's really the point that Microsoft will not understand!
Agreed, although not just Microsoft. I can't think of many major software manufacturers who are otherwise, I'm afraid. Wouldn't it be great if the focus was changed back to the customer.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 30, 2008 at 8:34 am
I agree that it is not just Microsoft, it is the problem of most software companies. I used to work for a software company. They need to have a new release in a certain time frame because that is how they make money, force customer to purchase the new release especially they announce they will not support the old version after certain date.
It is the Marketing and Sales department decision and the development team has very little involvement in making the release date.
My old company had Oracle ERP system, they had a lot of new releases but also had patches everyday. It just told me the release was not ready but they did it anyway and had the customers purchased the release and then the customer had to put in the patches everyday. My old company had to hire a person to put in the patches.
January 30, 2008 at 9:26 am
Hi All,
I agree with all of you.
IMHO, this is the facts of live. I believe Microsoft listen(may be?) but they can not change due to market situation.
Thing that I want to add is "Support End" as we know Microsoft will end the support on SqL server 2000 on April 8, 2008. This is killing me.
I used to work in the hospital at that time we bought the software from vendor, we have ~46 SQL server 2000 and just only one vendor that came up with SQL server 2005 that we need to change last year. We want to change but vendor are not ready due to all application quite critical.
Look like all vendors need to come up with SQL server 2005 now. If Microsoft can extend the support until SQL Server 2008 SP 1 come out that will be the best.
Sorry I confuse myself now, Microsoft never change.
Please forget about all above message.
January 30, 2008 at 11:46 am
My opinion on why Microsoft stuffs many "features" like SSRS in SQL Server is that Microsoft is marketing similar to Disney. When you go to Disneyworld, they have hotels, restaurants, waterparks, free transportation, and shopping in addition to the theme parks. They make it so convenient to spend all your time, and all your money, with them. With Microsoft, it’s “We have a free reporting tool with SQL Server, why use Crystal Reports”? Why buy a BI cube product when we give you Analysis Services. Heck, why not use .NET? After all you can use the same interface you grown used to with SQL Server. It is all so convenient to spend all your time and all your money with Microsoft. It is irritating to those who don't use the features, but it does get more people to tie their future in with the Microsoft platform. I don't expect any change in this regard. I do agree with the proposed timing of releases and service packs. It would be good customer service and a way to better plan for future software purchases. I'm not about to upgrade to SQL 2008 when it comes out, but if I knew the first service pack was to be delivered six months later, I could schedule conversion with more confidence.
January 30, 2008 at 1:00 pm
RYan Ackley (1/30/2008)
I am a former member of the SSRS (SQL Server Reporting Service) 2008 development team. I was a developer. I would like to respond to some of your points:Use R2s
I don't know, I think your splitting hairs. R2 == next version with less features? SQL Server faces a lot of competition, it has to add features and compete or it will die. Just don't upgrade if you're happy with the current version.
I don't see that more features are necessary to be competitive. I don't know of any have to have features in SQL2005, our upgrade will be because maintenance on SQL2000 is finished. For the database products, MS should strive to be more like the AS/400 world, where programs from 20 years ago still run without any problems at all. I hate being forced to upgrade when the current product meets all of the business needs. Worse, I hate having to explain to my business uses why the application they use for business critical processes has to change, when the current version does exactly what's required.
February 1, 2008 at 1:26 am
@ Tim, I agree. Bundling "free" stuff does make good business sense in making it difficult for other integration products to compete. The only point I'd return to is that the bundling doesn't necessarily have to be packaged as optional parts of the same product. There's no technical reason why Analysis Services couldn't be a freebie tool within a Resource Kit, no matter how heavyweight the tool ended up; it's just how it's marketed. The issue I have with the Microsoft model (and other major software vendors) is having to upgrade or become desupported when the major changes to the software driving the version change are changes to bits I may well not use.
@ Ross, what you're describing is the notion that making fewer changes to a stable application could provide a competitive edge. I agree entirely, and if it's true it'll happen eventually - even if I don't yet have a clear picture of how it'll end up coming about. Certainly, Microsoft'll take notice then even if they don't do anything before that point.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
February 1, 2008 at 8:48 am
I think they've done a good job with the "free stuff", especially with 2005 where it doesn't all install by default. I'm not sure how you get new versions of SSAS or SSIS without upgrading since there are dependencies on the code base.
I'm ok with the model of enhancing the wide platform, but what I'd like to see is that changes midstream, like the vardecimal, come out as options. Not required in an SP.
Fewer features are coming in Windows with the core install. I'd like to see a tuned core for SQL Server perhaps and while I think SQL Server 2005 is very stable, there are lots of annoying little bugs, especially in patches, that I think weren't caught because of poor testing.
Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 21 (of 21 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply