June 3, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Syncing Releases
June 3, 2009 at 7:49 pm
As there do not appear to be significant dependecies between the Database Engine, Analysis Services, Reporting Services, Integration Services and the new Master Data Management, MS would be better off breaking the release schedule dependencies between these services. Then, a delay, show stopper flaw, or significant change in any of the services could be released on a different schedule.
SQL = Scarcely Qualifies as a Language
June 4, 2009 at 4:35 am
Let's run that list again:
SQL 2008 R2
Windows 2008 R2
Office 2010
Visual Studio 2010
(Windows 7)
(Exchange 2010)
You have to think about it; that's a big list. I would guess that 1/2 (or more) of the company are engaged in developing and selling those products in some way (design, dev, test, PM, marketing, etc.). I'm wondering if Microsoft hasn't had enough manpower to see a synchronized release of their flagship products until now. Sure, MSFT is a big company but we must be talking tens of millions of man-hours - could even be hundreds of millions - to do a fully synchronized release cycle of this size.
It will be interesting to see if they can do it successfully. It will certainly set the bar very high for future release cycles.
James Stover, McDBA
June 4, 2009 at 7:34 am
In a way, I'd have to agree with Carl in that there are already too many things tied into a release of SQL Server. While I can understand the desire of Microsoft to bundle in all those additional features with SQL Server to add value for the customers, a full release of SQL Server should be more about changes to the RDBMS.
Remember that products like SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, and others are aimed at corporations. Most corporations tend to value stability more than the latest wiz-bang features. While the database vendors don't want their products to seem stale, corporate mentality and an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude would make a new full release of a product consideration for new projects and systems. Upgrading the information infrastructure of an existing system is generally seen as a major undertaking. I know for a fact that some companies still run SQL 2000 for major systems and are only now just considering moving to SQL 2005.
June 4, 2009 at 7:42 am
Chris,
It's a balance and I'm not sure how to address it. Microsoft doesn't expect, in my mind, everyone to upgrade to the next release. What they likely think is they will have 30-50% each time, with some people upgrading every 3 years, some every 6.
The problem is that if you wait 5-6 years between releases, it's a big upgrade. There are so many feature changes that it can be a hassle to train your people, not to mention upgrade related software. It's also harder to test and know if it makes sense.
Do any of us want to develop one big piece of software every 3 years in our company? No, we want to be more agile, releasing more often, and vendors are doing this as well. They also have to work out pricing, support, etc., but by moving to shorter cycles, they can get a certain amount of people to move each time in smaller upgrades.
Oracle, DB2, etc. do this, but they do point releases, and Microsoft has gotten away from that in a marketing move. However I believe the IBM/Oracle force maintenance on you, so you are paying for the point releases in a different way.
I'd say that MS should offer discounts for upgrades, and perhaps include R2 for free if you have the "base" version.
June 4, 2009 at 10:02 am
Considering all the new features they add each time with each product, and the amount of overlap, it's really about time.
With office 07 we saw OpenOfficeXML, but SSMS 2005 couldn't import it. Now we have 2008 reporting services, but VS2008 was released first, and doesnt have the report viewer (yet) These disconnects are the most frustrating to me. When you work with the rest of the system/organizations, many of these applications overlap, and when the features don't connect your stuck.
If I have specific features in one application that I like, but I can't use them because the other products it would work best with don't have that feature because it won't be relesaed until next year, then I'll just wait.
If they are released together, then I might buy them all, becuase I can use them all to upgrade my system. ie use the new SSIS to import OpenOfficeXML files, crunch, combine, split, modify, then display in my SSRS report viewer in VS 2008.
It's in Microsoft's best interest.
June 4, 2009 at 11:15 am
We are falling WAY behind here. Most of our SQL Server stuff is still on SQL 2000 (stable and if it ain't broke don't fix it). We have a few 2005 and have not even looked at Win2008 or SQL 2008 and now R2 will be out next year followed by SQL 2011 the year after... WOW !
June 4, 2009 at 11:29 am
Steve,
I'm not arguing with you, although the expectation of 30-50% upgrades seems rather high. I'm just trying to convey the corprate mindset that I've seen in 15 years as a database professional for several different companies. They typically end up with a mixed environment, older systems on the version that was recent at the time that system was developed or had a major overhaul, and newer systems on the more recent versions.
More releases more often = bad idea in the corporate world, because it will be more different releases that the IS/IT department has to support simultaneously.
June 4, 2009 at 11:35 am
I applaud the release, as it will help to push the 2008 series out there. Many wait for a second release for fear of problems and bugs, and this will mainstream it. 2008 has great enhancements especially in the BI sets. I look forward to this with much optimism.
June 4, 2009 at 11:54 am
Chris,
I tend to agree with you. Most IT groups don't want to upgrade servers often. But they will look to new versions, and I think it's a good idea to do a few here and there. It is harder to support, but if you take care of your staff and limit turnover (easier to do if you try), they can support the old versions, plus they get to learn new things.
I think the expectation for SQL Server DBAs going forward is that you'll need to support 3 or 4 versions of the platform at any time.
June 4, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Steve
Here at Big Enterprise inc. we are just now beginning the move to 2005, our application didn't play nice with 2005 so we had to wait for a newer version. So we are suffering with a new version of our application that is still buggy with 2005. You can bet if will be a long time before anyone thinks about going to 2008. And lets not even talk about the OS it is running on, just say none of the numbers are greater than 2.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply