March 17, 2009 at 11:28 am
gary (3/17/2009)
The sad fact is that Microsoft makes everything an application. SQL Server should be a server not a programming language and Vista should be an operating system not a toy for stitching your pictures. Microsoft will suffer unless they stop treating real work like games.Gary
SQL Server is a server (well, really it's a piece of software for a server, but I got what you meant). T-SQL is a language for getting that server to do things. You need both to get anything done.
Every OS that does anything other than host applications goes into the realm of "stitching pictures together", but I agree that Windows should have a business version that really just supports business stuff. XP Pro, Vista Business, etc., all have way too much piled on top of them for what they are meant to do.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 17, 2009 at 11:36 am
The Express version is designed by Microsoft to fill this hole, where a solid RDBMS engine is required but not all the extra features. I guess encouraging the use of Express also provides a certain amount of vendor-lock-in too.
The problem is that Express has a limit on the size of the database. Occasionally you have a need for a decent data store without all the overhead and costs of an enterprise solution. That's where OSS RDBMS like Postgres and its ilk find their niche.
March 17, 2009 at 11:40 am
chrisn (3/17/2009)
The Express version is designed by Microsoft to fill this hole, where a solid RDBMS engine is required but not all the extra features. I guess encouraging the use of Express also provides a certain amount of vendor-lock-in too.
The problem is that Express has a limit on the size of the database. Occasionally you have a need for a decent data store without all the overhead and costs of an enterprise solution. That's where OSS RDBMS like Postgres and its ilk find their niche.
Or where you start federating tables across multiple databases...
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 17, 2009 at 12:11 pm
You know, this article sounds a lot like the cell phone discussion.
Many thought that a portable phone was "superfluous" and over-the-top. That was before the next wave of technology turned them into portable PCs, video cameras, personal (and even not-so-personal) music players, GPS, 411, and etcetera.
One may not yet find a use for some certain new features. But therein lies much of the forward thinking of Microsoft. Most vendors build from absolute front end visibility needs, and come lacking when it comes to functionality, durability, and flexability. Microsoft on the other hand comes at it from the platform up, allowing connections to be made under the hood that others merely wink at. Maybe the value of some certain connections won't be realized until later, but the flexibility of the platform in the end stays in the game the longest.
Microsoft from the beginning focused on sharing information, vice blocking all others out. Yes, they did go through a security transition, but the flexibility of their platforms kept them solvent.
Give me bigger, better, faster, and more flexible, every time. Until another competitor enters the market that even comes close to the toolsets and the ease of connectability, I will choose MS product almost every time. This is not a one sided view; I have as much experience with open source and many other competitors as I do with MS wares, as I have had to work in co-mingled environments for most of my career.
Far too many employers see only initial cost, and not long term goals vs. TCO. Far too many well meaning IT folks do not know the difference(s) between platforms, having worked with only one or two.
March 17, 2009 at 12:13 pm
YSLGuru (3/17/2009)
BTW ... I must be the only person on the planet, aside from the actors in the Vista commercials, who has had no problems with Vista and likes it so much that I would pick it over XP any day.
You are not alone. 😎
March 17, 2009 at 3:22 pm
We've recently upgraded from sql 2k to 2k5 (64 bit) and have noticed up to a 9000% improvement (speed) in some scheduled jobs and stored procs. Users have measured 50% quicker response time across the board with the front end apps. Might just have something to do with the fact that we can now use all 24Gb of RAM rather than being restricted to the 2gb on the old server...
Yes - software products (imho) often have bloatware added - but if you're one of the people who needs/wants a particular widget out of a piece of software, then you're going to be relatively happy with what you get, regardless of whether you have to buy a new server/pc to run it on.
I do agree though, that in a lot of instances, the great majority of users only use around 20% of their software's capabilities...but do they all use the same 20%?
cheers,
niall
March 17, 2009 at 9:04 pm
niall,
good point, and I can only go on my experience. I've had lots of servers that all used roughly the same 20-30% of the product. The core engine, basic T-SQL, Agent, mail, that's it.
March 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm
We very much need standard file formats, but the application developers can certainly add their own style and performance level
A TV signal is generic, but you have a wide range of TVs on which to view it. You can go first class, or economy, big screen or tiny portable depending on your requirements
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
March 18, 2009 at 7:11 pm
jay holovacs (3/18/2009)
We very much need standard file formats, but the application developers can certainly add their own style and performance levelA TV signal is generic, but you have a wide range of TVs on which to view it. You can go first class, or economy, big screen or tiny portable depending on your requirements
I want the big picture, little to no footprint as tiny-to-virtually-invisible hardware, absolutely portable from location to location, and can I have it built into my all-in-wonder PDA?
(See most recent CES ... http://ces.cnet.com/8301-19167_1-10135314-100.html?tag=mncol;txt )
March 19, 2009 at 10:40 am
The knockoffs may gain all of the features, but they still lack the level of support and documentation I get from MSDN. To match that, they would need to charge the same price and then what's the point of using anything other than the original that I've used for so many years?
Joshua Perry
http://www.greenarrow.net
March 19, 2009 at 10:56 am
Just thinking about this again.
The benefit of MS is the across-the-board connectivity, interoperability, flexibilty, documentation, and many other aspects between multiple products in the suites.
Serious contenders would have to have more than just a single product to best... and that is why there are currently no serious contenders.
Consider how .NET allows multiple language support within the same project.
Consider how the server platforms from O/S to domain to web to DB server all interconnect on the same security platform of Active Directory and domain authentication. Simple user administration, vice multiple systems, or hard coded interlinks.
Consider the cross-suite interoperability in the Office suite.
There simply are no contenders.
Some say MS is a monopoly, but really cannot validly complain when it comes to getting what you pay for, compared to any other vendor who has ever tried to write comparable software. The MySQL crowd is learning some really hard, hard lessons right now...
March 19, 2009 at 11:16 am
This is true for the medium to large Enterprises. But is not so important for SMEs. To give an example, how many vendors have you had show up on site, who then demand to know the "sa" password to your precious MSSQL Server? In my situation, they get a very short answer, normally followed up with a standalone install of Express. But it does indicate that the vendor is not integrating with the Microsoft security platform - nor do they need to integrate to sell their product.
Andy
March 19, 2009 at 11:23 am
Even in the large enterprises, and I've worked in a few, we have had quite a few servers/applications, that barely needed any of the functionality of SQL Server. So many of them take advantage of bare features, essentially using a dumb data store.
I wonder, especially as more and more developers leave Microsoft over the years, would someone just try to implement a core SQL Server. If the development time wasn't too long, it might be something worth looking at.
March 19, 2009 at 11:28 am
I wonder, especially as more and more developers leave Microsoft over the years, would someone just try to implement a core SQL Server. If the development time wasn't too long, it might be something worth looking at.
It's called Postgres. 😛
Not actually a SQL Server clone, but for projects where money/licenses are a issue or cross platform capability is demanded, it's much better than MySql.
March 19, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I thought PostgreSQL was an Oracle clone.
Someone was building a t-SQL compliant server on top of it, though. ParAccel maybe? I think they got bought.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 41 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply