March 8, 2009 at 8:14 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item What Does Support Look Like?
March 8, 2009 at 6:35 pm
I don't mind so long as MS stops deprecating stuff... that's a bloody killer.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 9, 2009 at 10:03 am
I feel that this cycle came about largely due to the release cycles of the open-source world. It is a bit fast, but open-source has little to lose if they botch a release, as has been shown with several products. If Microsoft botches a release, they get hurt in big way$.
I also agree that and deprecations will need to stretch further to continue to keep the customers happy. Usually a deprecation is for good cause; but still, I think they'd want to grow the customer base and tread carefully.
Microsoft will also need to take care that faster release cycles don't introduce more issues, such as has been seen in some of the open source products.
March 9, 2009 at 11:53 am
I'd like to know, for how many people, does this actually matter? I would think that if you are still running SQL Server 2000, chances are you don't have any problems with it, therefore, you probably won't have any problems with it in the future, and therefore, you don't need support any ways.
I had a network administrator that basically refused to run any application from any company that didn't offer support. And when that support expired, we'd have to upgrade the product. Even though we didn't have any problems with the product and didn't plan on using any new features.
If you ask me, it was a total waste of money. Chances are, if the product works for you and then you do something that ends up breaking the product, when you call support they are just going to tell you to stop doing what you're trying to do. So what have you really gained?
March 9, 2009 at 12:27 pm
This situation is kind of odd ... let me explain briefly ...
In a business, the business processes and requirements that said drive the use of technology, including SQL Server, within that business. This accelerated version cycle at first sounds great but soon turns into the case of 'the tail wagging the dog'.
We have over 100 SQL 2000 instances that will eventually be upgraded to either SQL 2005 or maybe SQL 2010/SQL 2011. But remember, SQL 2000 SP4 is slated to be supported until 2013 ! If it ain't broke it ain't gonna get 'fixed'. There is no real ROI, just a black hole of expense for no reason other than to have 'our tail wag us' and probably many others as well. Just look at the adoption rates.
MS is doing good work and has in the past. However they just might want to rethink 'the tail wagging the dog' when it comes to releases.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
March 9, 2009 at 12:34 pm
I'm currently supporting 2000 and 2005. We're working on getting rid of the 2000, but there are no current plans for 2008. None of the new features are critical to this business, though compressed backups would be nice (not critical, just nice).
- 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 9, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Good points on the tail wagging the dog, and I'd forgotten service packs can extend out support. I'm not sure you'll get a GDR for your SQL Server 2000 SP4 box now, but I'd be curious to know if anyone has gotten anything for SQL 2000 since last April WITHOUT paying for support.
March 9, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Gus,
Don't forget plenty of third party products, like SQL Backup, can give you compression, at a substantial savings over upgrading.
March 9, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Steve, MS is keeping up on security patches - our latest to apply is MS09-004 - it contains both a GDR patch and a QFE patch - prior to thet we had MS08-052 and MS08-040 - again GDRs and QFEs in each.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
March 9, 2009 at 5:53 pm
SQL Server 2000 is fine for stuff written in the days of SQL Server 2000.
The basic point here is 'if it broke don't fix it'. If it is broken (or will be) then upgrade.
If you need new features upgrade and use them.
If you have a system that has run without fail for nearly ten years you atre probably OK as you are.
.
March 9, 2009 at 5:59 pm
t.walker (3/9/2009)
SQL Server 2000 is fine for stuff written in the days of SQL Server 2000.The basic point here is 'if it broke don't fix it'. If it is broken (or will be) then upgrade.
If you need new features upgrade and use them.
If you have a system that has run without fail for nearly ten years you atre probably OK as you are.
Pretty much what I was thinking...
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
March 9, 2009 at 9:06 pm
There's still some v65 and v7 servers out there running fine.
March 10, 2009 at 8:18 am
We actually have 2 v7.0 servers that I am aware of. They function perfectly well and will not be changed - this is due mainly to business needs and the ROI factor.
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
March 10, 2009 at 8:32 am
You have support for those v7 servers or just running them?
Just curious because I know it was worth it for some companies to pay the $50k or so to get support.
March 10, 2009 at 8:42 am
No active support - however I believe that MS still does security. I do recall that either MS08-040 or MS08-052 security hot fixes had components for v7.0 too !
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply