June 23, 2011 at 8:36 am
roger.plowman (6/23/2011)
Bah. Steve, with all due respect, you're part of the problem. The fact is XP *DOES NOT WORK* anymore. Why? Security! It's out of support, meaning no more security fixes. So if another Melissa or Conficker comes along, XP users are *toast*.
Valid point, but it's not necessarily a high risk issue. It could happen, but it's not guarenteed, nor is it guaranteed that a virus comes out and there is a patch in a reasonable time for Win 7.
A lot of this could be fixed if we mandated that the code for an EOL product be put in the public domain after some xx years, or maybe when a product is EOL'd. That would allow an alternative marker (like we have with cars and some other products) to exist.
June 23, 2011 at 8:37 am
Eric M Russell (6/23/2011)
Regarding the client tools specifically (SSMS, BIDS, DAC, etc.), if the user's version of Windows has the latest .NET framework installed, then it shouldn't matter what version of Windows it is. We don't need any Windows Vista flash in the tools we use to manage or query the database. The whole idea of .NET was for software developers to stop making low level Windows API calls.
Not sure that they've gotten this far, but I'd agree. I wouldn't be surprised if security is more of the issue.
June 23, 2011 at 9:01 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (6/23/2011)
Eric M Russell (6/23/2011)
Regarding the client tools specifically (SSMS, BIDS, DAC, etc.), if the user's version of Windows has the latest .NET framework installed, then it shouldn't matter what version of Windows it is. We don't need any Windows Vista flash in the tools we use to manage or query the database. The whole idea of .NET was for software developers to stop making low level Windows API calls.Not sure that they've gotten this far, but I'd agree. I wouldn't be surprised if security is more of the issue.
I understand that XP has low level security volnerabilities that Vista / 7 doesn't (and vice versa), but that shouldn't mean that the Denali client software won't install or run on XP. It should be up to the IT department heads to determine if their users are allowed to run XP or connect to SQL Server from XP. I think that going forward SQL Server should be XP agnostic. The idea should be that, if the client supports .NET >= ?, then the SQL Server client tools should run on it. However, if they choose to only take support calls for Windows >= Vista, then that's understandable. There is a large XP community out there who can help XP users resolve their technical issues, if it boils down to something like a registry misconfiguration or missing DLL. I've been developing VB, .NET, and SQL Server applications for over 15 years, and I've never once reached a road block where I had to call Microsoft technical support. I've always been able to find the solution to my problem online or from the user community.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
June 23, 2011 at 9:08 am
I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment "if the OS still works for you..." Obviously, if I need a particular piece of software and it doesn't run on my choice of OS, then that OS doesn't work for me.
I think the real problem is not whether the OS works for me, but whether the OS still works for me. People that wouldn't bat an eye when they find out they need to install Windows (or Linux, or get a Mac) to run a particular piece of software get awfully cranky when it turns out they need a different version of an OS they already have.
June 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
Just so we're clear, we're not talking about any user. XP will work fine for client applications. It won't run the SQL Server tools or dev edition.
June 23, 2011 at 10:37 am
This would have been less of an issue if Vista hadn't been such a colossal mess. But that forced most companies to skip an upgrade cycle. So this feels more forced than it really is.
June 23, 2011 at 1:05 pm
It's a fact of life that most people work for companies whose prime function is not to test software and fund software companies. Most companies see IT as a tool to do a job.
There is a view that IT is the sewage pipes of the organisation. You want them to work, you don't want them to break but you don't want to see or touch them.
For them what is the compelling need to upgrade beyond the technical? If there isn't a non-technical need can you communicate the technical need in such a way that the business community will say "hey wow, I demand an upgrade, here's your cheque"!
I'm looking a systems that are running on SQL2000 and the only reason they are running on SQL2000 is because the SQL7 install disks were lost.
From a business perspective the servers barely notice the load (8000 batch requests.sec) and the apps have run fine for years.
Do I want to support SQL2000? Hell no!
Do I want to be skilled up in the latest technology? Damn right I do!
If I can go to a business user and say "by upgrading to SQL2008 Enterprise Edition" I can extend the life of the SAN by 3 years due to the benefits of the compression facility. This will save you $millions" then I am in with a chance.
If I go to the business and say "by upgrading to SQL2008 (and beyond) you make my life easier)" it becomes a case of how much value they place on my time. What could they use me for if half my workload vanished? Would they have a use for me if half my workload vanished?:ermm:
I've just come back from a SQL Server User Group raving about Stream Insight. It just so happens that Stream Insight answers a lot of questions that the business are asking. Maybe we'll go with an alternative vendor for CEP but maybe we won't and it will be a compelling argument for moving to SQL2008R2.
June 24, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Seems to me that most companies wanting to run Denali will probably be running Win7 or Vista, and those that are just fine on XP are probably going to be just fine with SQL2008R2 or below.
June 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm
I am a bit surprised that (so far) no one mentioned memory hogging as a sound reason for going to a newer OS. XP is 10 years old and has a 2 GB limit, and that's that. With various seep-back technologies and newer versions of Visual Studio, you get to that limit and over it, paging goes up and so do response times.
Win7 64 does not have a practical limit. If you check the HP online store, you may notice that Precision 7500 can take up to 192 GB, and that is a desktop.
Also, older versions of OS (say Windows) do not necessarily support new devices, and if your old one breaks down, you may be (and often are) out of luck.
June 24, 2011 at 4:20 pm
IceDread (6/23/2011)
Feels like fundamental flaw when a database server is highly dependent on it's operating system..
The fact is that several physical database characteristics on database servers ARE OS dependent, and that has always been the case. Where have you been? 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
June 27, 2011 at 12:04 am
I know.. but I still think it's a big flaw.
June 27, 2011 at 12:47 am
IceDread (6/27/2011)
I know.. but I still think it's a big flaw.
Cars are dependent on gasoline too, but whether that is a big fundamental design flaw or not, is a matter of who you ask, but even so, that does not necessarily make it a flaw. Databases and OS's are the same way, it depends on you ask. but that does not mean that it is necessarily the case.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
June 27, 2011 at 1:33 am
Revenant (6/24/2011)
I am a bit surprised that (so far) no one mentioned memory hogging as a sound reason for going to a newer OS. XP is 10 years old and has a 2 GB limit, and that's that.
There is a 64-bit version of Windows XP. Yes, it sucked mightily, but it did exist... 😀
June 27, 2011 at 9:03 am
Paul, you are of course absolutely right, there was one. However, its driver model was so difficult that very few third parties bothered to port their products to it. So if you had XP 64, you could install Office and Visual Studio but practically no decent DVD or BR player, not speaking about games.
June 28, 2011 at 1:44 pm
There are many older apps that I prefer over newer apps due to functionality (change or loss). If the app works solid, then why not use it still?
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply