Comments on: Merry Microsoft Christmas, Oracle and IBM!

By: » TechCrunch Articles Written By Steve Poland (2006-2007) - By Steve Poland - web startup ideas and brainstorms, straight up! (formerly Techquila Shots)

Mon, 04 May 2009 17:25:54 +0000

[...] Endless.com Dec. 15, 2006 – Google Starts Selling Domains For $10 Per Year Dec. 15, 2006 – Merry Microsoft Christmas, Oracle and IBM! Dec. 10, 2006 – MyBlogLog adds MySpace support Dec. 1, 2006 – Online Job Hunt 10 Years Later – [...]

By: Vinit

Vinit — Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:09:56 +0000

Atleast post yout “Update” text at the top of this post.

And it’s not really an “update”, rather a “CORRECTION” on your part.

So stop acting like Microsoft fixed something because you posted about it.

By: Jay

Jay — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:49:09 +0000

Steve,

I appreciate you taking time to come back to this thread.

-Jay

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:23:19 +0000

Here is Microsoft’s official position, as of September 27, 2006:

**Running SQL Server on “Microsoft Windows Server Longhorn” or Microsoft Windows Vista**

“In an effort to provide customers with more secure products, Microsoft Windows Server “Longhorn” and Microsoft Windows Vista will only support SQL Server 2005 Service Pack 2 (SP2) or later when it becomes available. Earlier versions of SQL Server, including SQL Server 2000 (all editions including Desktop Engine edition, a.k.a MSDE), SQL Server 7.0, and SQL Server 6.5, will not be supported on Windows Server “Longhorn” or Windows Vista. Customers running applications with these earlier versions of SQL Server should consider evaluating and upgrading to SQL Server 2005, which was designed to take advantage of the upcoming security and performance enhancements in the operating environment.”

By: Martin Seebach

Martin Seebach — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:57:49 +0000

Its a WONDERFUL day. A new company has wrested control of the howitzers to shoot themselves in the foot. Itty Bitty Mind Co. has had a lock for so long….

It has long been apparent Micro$not has no concern over ‘what do the users want’ and heavy emphasis on ‘give em crap and charge em a ton for buggy, bloated, non thought out/planned software.’ Mid 90’s I thought it great fun to test ‘pre-beta os’s and packages’ for the death star of redmond. Pity I showed them how to take a 30 day eval package of NT4 server with 3 client licenses and turn it into a 50 user, no time limit setup. In those long ago dayz though, the klowns weren’t threatening over use, users, etc…

Gotta give post 39 a kudo there……it will run a client, if and ONLY IFF, UBA software engineer.

Joyeux Noelle et La Bon Annee y’all.

-Marty

By: Milo Riano

Milo Riano — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:02:19 +0000

You know nothing about what you’re talking about! Why the hell would you want to install and run SQL Server 2005 on Vista? It’s a server product man.

Next time try to research more to fill-in your big technical gap…

By: James Alexander

James Alexander — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 02:18:31 +0000

Uh….I’m pretty confused, I’m a software engineer, typing this comment via Vista, and have SQL Server Management Studio Express (the Express version) up on my second monitor. Are you sure you guys know what the hell your talking about?

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:11:56 +0000

I should have better researched this prior to posting. — Steve

Best comment ^ever^ — same with Natali’s post on BlogKits yesterday… two posts, neither researched.

Esp. since this was a sponsored post.

By: Steve Poland

Steve Poland — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:29:09 +0000

I should have better researched this prior to posting. Business 2.0 broke the story and their article simply references “the current version of SQL Server,” but they were merely referring to “MS SQL Server 2005 Express.” Given that’s the case — this isn’t a gift to Oracle or IBM, and this shouldn’t have any effect on Microsoft’s position in the database market. My apologies for this.

From Business 2.0, which broke the story originally — “(Before any more of you fire off an outraged e-mail informing me that Vista doesn’t run SQL Server, go back and read the above paragraphs again: I’m talking about SQL Server 2005 Express, which is the desktop counterpart of SQL Server – not the server version.)”

By: Wayne

Wayne — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:13:26 +0000

This story got picked up by Business 2.0 (CNN/Money):
http://money.cn...oft_vista.biz2/

By: Stéphane Lee

Stéphane Lee — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:56:14 +0000

It does not matter if SQL 2005 does not run on Vista. SQL 2005 is meant to be run on Windows 2003. Who’s installing SQL 2005 on Vista anyway?

By: StormedBrains » Blog Archive » Ancora una incompatibilità per Vista

StormedBrains » Blog Archive » Ancora una incompatibilità per Vista — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:29:52 +0000

[...] [Fonte CNN e Techrunch] [...]

By: John Gunning

John Gunning — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:32:10 +0000

+1 for SQL Server 2005 is a server product designed to run on Windows Server 2003 and not Vista which is the desktop successor to Windows XP.

The SQL 2005 client tools run beautifully on Vista BTW – my company’s flagship product (http://www.bidocumenter.com) and customers rely on it.

By: Mark Cohen

Mark Cohen — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 06:59:40 +0000

I’ve been running SQL Server Express and developing websites against it, on Vista, running on a MacBook Pro to boot. No problems here at all. Some inteligence required to get it working because of security lockdowns but nothing a decent tech person could not deal with.

By: Survival Shows

Survival Shows — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 06:25:00 +0000

I sure wouldn’t want to use VISTA in a “LIVE” enviroment right now wait a few months until it’s stable atleast.. err years

By: Vic

Vic — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 04:55:24 +0000

“Lack of internal talks”. That’s a pretty bold statement. Unless you have some inside information about the management of MS, don’t just assume. MS is a big company with a long history. It’s currently maybe not the leanest tech company out there, but I definitely would give MS the benefit of the doubt.

Tried and true companies have protocols, software cycles, quality assurance systems, six sigma, etc. To claim that MS has a “lack of internal” talks because the Zune doesn’t work on Vista, is going a bit too far in your assumptions. It’s like diagnosing brain cancer without actually determining whether the tumor is benign or malignant.

Zune doesn’t need to work for Vista (yet) and the arguments of this post has already been rebutted from the comments above.

Steve, in your fairness, please respond because I personally am not familiar with the technical content of this post.

By: Raj

Raj — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 03:13:06 +0000

I have been using SQL Server 2005 Express with Vista RTM it works fine.

By: Arjun

Arjun — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:36:16 +0000

Seriously, what’s up with this FUD? It’s only the EXPRESS (desktop) product that won’t work at launch time, and nobody serious about themselves even uses it.

By: fear uncertainty doubt generation engine » Blog Archive » Techcrunch annoyance

Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:08:30 +0000

[...] That said, it is a post like this one over at Techcrunch this that makes me reconsider having Techcrunch in my feed list. There is an editor note to presumably disclaim the content of the post. [...]

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:58:26 +0000

@wayne lambright -

You said:

“I know allot of people love to slam Microsoft and much of it is well deserved, but I must say that Microsoft as late is turning out some high quality products, IE7 blow’s away FireFox, asp.net 2.0 is rock solid and very fast. just my 2 cents.”

IE7 cannot blow away Firefox, Safari, Opera or any other browser until it complies with standards. Period.

As for the topic, internal talks are vital to a company. It seems that the only company with less internal talks is Sony.

By: Louis-Eric

Louis-Eric — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:28:00 +0000

The “Server OS” people are out of their minds; we’ve had lots of clients who use MS SQL Server on their local machines, for themselves (or a few immediate colleagues in low-volume transaction systems). These people will not buy a distinct machine, outfit it with an expensive “Server OS” license, and be their only clients; real life designs are not always true to ideal diagrams. Building a good OS — and afferent application suites — involves taking real life usage into consideration.

By: The Web Conferencing Blog

The Web Conferencing Blog — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:35:45 +0000

Not sure what this post is actually about…Maybe I am missing something but from the comments above, I think I am on par with everyone else.

http://davidchao.typepad.com

By: Paul Murphy

Paul Murphy — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:24:02 +0000

Steve, mate – as this post is also an ad for your business it might be good to elaborate on what you meant. As it stands, we don’t see the point.

On another point, I appreciate colour commentary to prove a point. There actually was an angle you could have taken on this post that would have been factually correct and still got your point across.

There’s been more than a few disappointing posts on here lately (along with some great ones). I think more editorial review (not censorship) would be helpful for such a popular blog.

It’s still one of my fav blogs..

By: Anif™

Anif™ — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:04:24 +0000

Like others have mentioned, Server apps run on server OS, client apps run on client OS.

And also again, Oracle and IBM just seem so unrelated to this story, considering the fact that they were included in the article title….

By: Lach

Lach — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:29:24 +0000

More news, less irrelevant opinions from Steve.

It’s not hard to get SQL Express to work, and noone is really going to bother porting to the desktop version of oracle just because of that. Both databases being free of course, not eating into any 14 Billion dollar pie.

Less hyperbole.q