February 10, 2011 at 12:56 am
The table on the linked page raises a question. Pretty obviously support SQL Server 2005 with any service pack less than 4 expires in a few months, but it's entirely unclear when mainstream support for SP4 and SP5 expires, especially since it says that support for SP4 doesn't expire until January 2012!
February 10, 2011 at 2:53 am
We've had a similar issue with hardware.
Several of our servers are 5 years old. They work fine, they are not creaking at the seems or holding the business back but the supplier wants us to buy new servers or they will not support them even if we paid for a support contract.
We've gone to another hardware support company and saved ourselves several thousdand pounds.
We are opperating in a recession and we need to see a big "cost bennefit" before investing in new purchases.
February 10, 2011 at 6:07 am
I think if you look at the bigger picture, incidents like this are intended to do one thing - bring Microsoft more revenue.
In my decades in the software business the biggest conundrum a software company faces is repeat revenue. Microsoft tends to resolve this time and time again by selling us basically the same thing over and over again. Now people argue that with each new version of Office, Visual Studio, SQL Server and a number of MS products, the software is "getting better". I would argue that the software is doing nothing more than "being different". Witness Vista, the Office "Ribbon", and things of this nature - these are not improvements - they are simply something different.
And along with those differences, Microsoft touts "improved". Well, yes, improved sometimes - but basically look at what might be your own customers. We have customers still running Windows XP because they trust it, and don't trust Microsoft. We have customers sticking with Office 2003 because they trust it, and see the Office 2007/2010 path as nothing more than change (and not favorable change) for change sake.
Then, notice that Microsoft's return on their stock is about 2.75% right now. One of the lowest figures ever seen in its history. Consider that Apple is returning 38% and even IBM is returning 17%. Add this to the news that Bill Gates just sold off 90 million (yes, million) shares of his own Microsoft stock and you have to wonder what to think when the founder of the company does not seem to believe quite as much in the company he himself founded.
You can look at the technical aspects of SQL 2000 versus 2005 versus 2008 and talk "geek" over what's improved or different, but be assure that Steve Ballmer isn't looking at that stuff. He's looking to sell you and me the same thing over and over again, and the best gun to our heads are the never ending announcements that there wont be support.
Imagine if car companies worked that way... We'd all be broke, and probably walking a lot.
February 10, 2011 at 6:12 am
While it's certainly true that Microsoft are in the business of selling new software, I don't think it's true to say that every new version they release is purely for the sake of grabbing money from us. After all, it's not like open source applications are any different--they get features added and dropped all the time, and that certainly can't be because they're after more money because the stuff is free! They also drop support for older versions after a time, as well.
February 10, 2011 at 6:46 am
paul.knibbs (2/10/2011)
The table on the linked page raises a question. Pretty obviously support SQL Server 2005 with any service pack less than 4 expires in a few months, but it's entirely unclear when mainstream support for SP4 and SP5 expires, especially since it says that support for SP4 doesn't expire until January 2012!
the notes qoute - 'Support ends 12 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first.'
so from that I read it ends in April
---------------------------------------------------------------------
February 10, 2011 at 6:55 am
for me when it goes out of mainstream support is not as important as when it goes out of extended support, which is not for another 5 years. So I am comfortable with apps being on SQL2005 for a while yet. I know till then known problems will be fixed and security issues resolved. The chances of hitting a totally new bug after SQL 2005 has been out this long are so slim as to be negligible
---------------------------------------------------------------------
February 10, 2011 at 7:16 am
paul.knibbs (2/10/2011)
The table on the linked page raises a question. Pretty obviously support SQL Server 2005 with any service pack less than 4 expires in a few months, but it's entirely unclear when mainstream support for SP4 and SP5 expires, especially since it says that support for SP4 doesn't expire until January 2012!
If you look at this page:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2855
"Support ends 12 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first."
...to me this suggests that Mainstream Support ends on 12th April 2011 based on the other dates in the table.
Chris
February 10, 2011 at 7:30 am
We generally license the latest versions of products whenever we do a hardware refresh. On the desktop, we usually install the newest OS, but do downgrade installs on applications until we've got to the point at which the only 'old' machines left can run the new applications (assuming those apps work on the old OS, too). Then we deploy the new apps to everybody.
On the server, we just go ahead and install all those fancy new products, assuming of course that they've passed the testing with all the client-side software. In general, failure to pass means we try to upgrade the client rather than stick with the old server software. In the cases where we can't do that, we'll leave an old server in service for those old applications until we can do something about it.
All that means that we are out at the leading edge for a short while, eventually falling back to being behind the times, then leaping ahead again.
This time around, we're moving to fully virtualized servers. I suspect that will break the relationship between the hardware and software refresh cycle. My hope is that we can move into a more gradual process instead of leaping forward and falling back. My fear is that we'll allow things to stagnate to the point where we are forced to leap forward for reasons beyond our control, thus taking on excessive risk.
February 10, 2011 at 8:09 am
We have so many SQL Servers here we would have to have a team of DBAs and Application folks simply dedicated to keeping up with SQL Server new versions. Half of our SQL Servers are still in SQL 2000. We simply just don't have the money to have a software assurance program or repurchase SQL Server every 3-4 years for the latest release either. One of our big SQL2000 Clusters does have a project to upgrade to SQL 2008 this year but we are waiting to hear if the budget for it gets approved still. It got shot down last year. It runs fine the way it is and the latest software version doesn't give us a ton of bang for the buck so it is difficult to justify the huge cost of moving to brand new clustered servers. Not to mention the massive number of hours to make sure it all works and doesn't kill our store apps.
I still say a new version of SQL Server every three years is too quick.. but that is just me.
Heck, last year we implemented a new store polling app and the software company had not certified Win2008\SQL2008 yet so we installed two clustered Win2003/SQL2005 clusters for it.... jeesh huh?
February 10, 2011 at 8:09 am
I agree with blandry. As a contractor I've seen the gamut, clients still supporting 6.5 and running Windows 2000 to those running Windows 7, Server 2008 and SQL 2008 R2.
Now there's Denali... why? In an environment where there are 2 installations of Windows Server 2008 out of a 100+ servers and 4 installations of SQL 2008 R2 out of dozens of installations of SQL 2005 and SQL 2000 and yes, even an old SQL 7.0 install, why do we need another version of SQL Server? Especially one that won't support older versions.
Microsoft didn't even get Visual Studio 2010 to work with SQL Server before it was rushed to market.
No, I recommend to my clients that they stop here at SQL 2008 R2 and let it stabilize and get caught up with the platform. I've got clients with hundreds of DTS packages with ActiveX scripting to convert to SSIS and they've never even seen an SSIS package, let alone know how to deploy one.
February 10, 2011 at 8:11 am
paul.knibbs (2/10/2011)
The table on the linked page raises a question. Pretty obviously support SQL Server 2005 with any service pack less than 4 expires in a few months, but it's entirely unclear when mainstream support for SP4 and SP5 expires, especially since it says that support for SP4 doesn't expire until January 2012!
This article from MS (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/psssql/archive/2010/02/17/mainstream-vs-extended-support-and-sql-server-2005-sp4-can-someone-explain-all-of-this.aspx) provides a clearer explanation than MS's poorly worded table.
Basically, if you are running SQL Server 2005 and have the most recent service pack installed (SP4), extended support will exist through April 2016, which includes Security Updates:
First, look at the last row which shows SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition. Notice the General Availability Date of 1/14/2006. This is the official ship date of SQL Server 2005 RTM as a product. The Mainstream Support Retired Date is the when mainstream support of SQL Server 2005 as a product ends (remember 5 years after ship). The Extended Support Date is 4/12/2016, 5 years after mainstream ends. But look at the Service Pack Retired date. It says 7/10/2007. What does this mean? This date is when any support for SQL Server 2005 RTM ended if you have not installed a supported service pack. In other words, if you are using SQL Server 2005 RTM, you must upgrade to a recent service pack to be supported after this date. Think of SQL Server 2005 RTM as “Service Pack 0”. So the support for SP0 ended on 7/10/2007. But mainstream and extended support are still possible, provided you upgrade to a supported service pack.
I would say that Steve's opening line "Support for SQL Server 2005 is due to expire in a few months..." is misleading. Mainstream support will expire in a few months, yes, but Extended support will exist for another 5 years thereafter, provided your server's service pack is the most recent available.
Rich
February 10, 2011 at 8:17 am
Extended support is available, but you have to purchase an extended support contract. That is a substantial change from what people are used to now with their installations.
You will still get security fixes for five years, but no bug fixes. Note that while you might be running fine, there are still bugs being fixed in SQL Server 2005, with CUs continuing to come out. Not saying that this is an issue, but something to be aware of. If you continue to develop against SQL 2005, you should be prepared to code around bugs if you run into them because you will not get any patches after April if you call support and report an issue, unless you have purchased an Extended Support Agreement. Not sure you can purchase this in September if you find you need it.
February 10, 2011 at 8:25 am
We're one of those places still running 6.5, as well as 2005 and 2008. About 6 years ago we moved it (6.5) to a virtual machine, because finding hardware that could run NT was getting hard, and keeping many spares on the shelf was not working (they tend to degrade, interestingly enough). It is running a mission critical application (a factory automation system) that we 'could' upgrade to the latest version (which would then require sql server 2005, I think). However, the upgrade project has enormous implications to the operation of our plant, and if something isn't broke, why fix it? We will probably be using it for about another 5 years, and then will upgrade only because our plant will have outgrown the capacity of the plc's -- NOT the capabilities of 6.5 -- and when they need to be upgraded we will just opt for a new automation system.
February 10, 2011 at 8:28 am
steve, are you saying MS will not even supply you the fix for a KNOWN bug without extended support or a one off payment?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 33 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply