Microsoft’s latest operating system, Vista, which went on sale to corporate customers November 30 — can not run the latest version of Microsoft’s corporate database product, MS SQL Server. Microsoft is working on a SQL Server upgrade (SQL Server 2005 Express Service Pack 2), but it’s in beta and available for testing purposes only.
Last month I commented on the lack of internal talks at Microsoft, discussing how their Zune device isn’t compatible with Vista — TechCrunch commenters felt this didn’t matter, considering the consumer release of Vista was months away and that “Microsoft probably does not give a sh*t that some twelve year old cannot use Zune on his pirated copy of Vista yet.” Fair enough. But Vista not working with their corporate database product, SQL Server? That’s not smart for a company trying to grab their piece of the $14 billion database pie.
Update: 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.
Editor’s Note: This post was written by Steve Poland, a guest contributor. Steve is the founder and web strategy consultant for Vested Ventures, a firm specializing in website consulting, internet marketing, and high-end custom web development.
Steve,
You were right then and you are right now. There must be a certain synergy internally. Its a matter of perception and when it affects compatabilty
its worse.
Ah…one of the cons of being so massive…it probabely takes days to get from one side of the building to the next…that is if they are in the same building….
http://www.jollyjo.org
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.
It should be noted that the primarily targeted enterprise platform for SQL Server 2005 is Windows Server 2003, not Windows Vista. SQL Server 2005 is a server product, meant to be installed on a Server platform. Corporations aren’t going to be running their corporate databases on users’ Vista-based workstation. The version of SQL Server 2005 you mention (Express Edition) is Microsoft’s free version of the product and used primarly by developers and a few desktop applications at present (the vast majority of desktop application implementations of SQL Server still use MSDE 2000, a scaled-down, free version of Microsoft’s previous generation SQL Server 2000).
Blasting Microsoft’s “corporate database product” for not *installing* on an operating system that isn’t part of its primary target market is misguided. Your implication that Vista doesn’t work at all with SQL Server 2005 is simply wrong. Users running Vista on their *workstations* can easily access the *servers* running SQL Server 2005 using the SQL Server Management Studio, the tool designed for workstation use, as-is, without SQL Server 2005 SP2. This would be a typical corporate scenario, and is currently supported.
mickysoft put in too much security…and it breaks almost all applications. What they are forcing us (I dev) to do is foolw strick guildlines which have no point other than mickysoft feels it has to be done that way.
The real problem with security is IE and macros form WORD and EXCEL; and rouge email viruses….but they seem to think its the application developers.
hence…you have applications developed by mickysoft not able to run on mickysoft.
SS2005 Developer and Express Editions install and run just fine on Vista. Vista gives you warnings and encourages you to install SP1. I doubt it is a support configuration, but everything seems to work.
Hey, what does SQL Server have to do with TechCrunch?!?!
Please please, tell us something about MS Exchange as well!!!
yeah how could it not work, Vista is just XP with a nfew UI tweaks anyways. nothing that could have broke SQL server..
i guess the reason this is on topic is, its a technology, its crunch time for microsoft ( Ubuntu, Web as OS, and product mediocrity chewing away at their soul)
Some of the people that comment on here are keyboard-happy, waiting to pounce on grammar mistakes, knock the subject of the post, or just make wild guesses without any basis. If you don’t like what you are reading skip and come back when your feed changes. Piranhas.
Whether or not SQL Server runs nicely on Vista is about as relevant as whether or not it plays nice on Windows ME.
SQL Server belongs on Windows 2003 or 2000 server edition.
It might suck a little for developers who want to run the latest and greatest, but like Eric B noted, this is pretty irrelevant. No sane person will deploy SQL Server on Vista anyway; they’ll use a server OS like Windows Server 2003. Vista is a client OS.
Oh… and the idea that this is somehow a gift for Oracle and IBM? Who exactly was planning on running SQL on Vista, but now that they can’t they’re moving to Oracle running on IBM hardware? That just makes absolutely no sense.
This post sadly shows a lack of understanding of the topic being discussed. As posters above have mentioned, SQL Server is NOT meant to be deployed on a client OS and never would be. SQL Server running on an appropriate server OS such as Win 2k3 is accessible from a Vista client. SQL Server Express is not at all a corporate database product as is only a desktop-app/development database product.
Yeah, I’d have to agree that’s not the best move. But they will have it rectified shortly with SP2…So no biggie. Who is gonna move immediately to Vista and begin development utilizing SQL Server Express?
>>SQL Server is NOT meant to be deployed on a client OS
it should run anywhere cause mySQL does and developers use “client” OS to dev on.
“IE7 blow’s away FireFox”
If you are a big fan of gradients, maybe.
Can I also add that this post is sorta moronic? Okay, I just did. And it is.
What was the point of this post?
The author is obviously completely clueless about the topic, as other people above have noticed.
Stick to “Ooh! Isn’t that cool how I can attach my cat’s PetID tag to my Flickr-based IM feed” or whatever the hell else it is this site is supposed to be about.
Steve,
Server applications run on server operating systems.
Developers may be impacted if there are any obvious insurmountable issues running SQL Server on development Vista workstations, but that’s it — and any of those issues are usually the first to be fixed.
This is a not an issue and hardly a gift to Oracle and IBM.
When are we gonna discuss this on this board ?
Le Web3 the good, bad and ugly.
http://uk.techcrunch.com/2006/.....ment-40098
…Microsoft probably does not give a sh*t that some twelve year old cannot use Zune on his pirated copy of Vista yet…
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH
I am glad someone pointed out that SQL Server not running on Vista is totally irrelevent. Vista is a desktop OS and SQL server runs on Windows 2003 Server.
Vista replaces Windows XP. Windows 2003 places Windows 2000. This is a non-story and frankly makes Steve Poland look a little clueless and like someone desperately trying to drum up some controversy. Steve, you blundered this time and I think deserves an update on the original post.
What does this post have to do with Oracle? Anyway, Vista is not a server OS…the next server release will come out of project Longhorn.
OK, now, back to blogging about Oracle at
kevinclosson.wordpress.com
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
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….
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..
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
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.
@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.
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.
I have been using SQL Server 2005 Express with Vista RTM it works fine.
“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.
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
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.
+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.
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?
This story got picked up by Business 2.0 (CNN/Money):
http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/1.....ista.biz2/
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.)”
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.
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?
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…
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
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.”
Read more: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/h.....vista.mspx
Steve,
I appreciate you taking time to come back to this thread.
-Jay
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.