|SQL Server Magazine readers produced an outpouring of comments in response to Michael Otey’s and Brian Moran’s columns about the upcoming release of Microsoft SQL Server 2008. Overwhelmingly, readers said they weren’t ready for an upgrade coming so soon after the release of Microsoft SQL Server 2005, and would either stay on SQL Server 2005 indefinitely or avoid an interim upgrade to SQL Server 2005 and go straight from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2008.|
In their recent commentaries about the
impending release of SQL Server 2008,
Michael Otey and Brian Moran homed in on what's
clearly a hot button for SQL Server pros. (See "Too
Soon for SQL Server 2008?" August 2007, InstantDoc
ID 96028 and "Leapfrogging to Katmai," June 2007,
server_96348.html.) Readers responded to Michael
and Brian's columns by voicing their concerns
about Microsoft's 2008 "technology refresh"
coming on the heels of a major upgrade. Most of the
responses fell into one of two categories: either "2008?
We're still getting used to 2005!" or "We'll probably
just skip the 2005 upgrade and go straight to 2008."
Here's a sampling of feedback from both online comments
"I agree with your editorial; every developer and
architect I know is still coming to terms with the
nuances of SQL Server 2005; 2008 is too tight of
"Not to sound naive, but the new major versionrelease
schedule Microsoft has started is more about
money than support. Yes, they are a company and are
supposed to make money. But this new release is too
soon for many of the larger customers. The changes
to the BI area of SQL Server have many still learning
and adjusting.... Adoption of tools takes time and
resources to accomplish. Backward compatibility
has always been an issue for Microsoft, \[and\] I have
to wonder what problems will occur if people skip a
release - which I can see becoming more common."
"My opinion and that of other SQL Server users
and DBAs that I've talked to is that we're all just
now starting to move in the direction of SQL Server
2005, either due to budget reasons or waiting for
software vendors to certify their software on SQL
Server 2005. Now we get word that in six months,
Microsoft is coming out with the next version? We're
wondering what the purpose of doing anything
in SQL Server 2005 is, and we're thinking of just
waiting for next year to try and adopt SQL Server
2008. But that is only if our software vendors certify
it for compatibility... It's a vicious cycle; it seems that now that Microsoft has adopted this new release
schedule, we're always going to be at least one, if not
two, versions behind."
"We have only one SQL 2005 install here. The rest
(20 production servers) are on SQL Server 2000...
about half on Windows 2000. We are in a budget
crunch, so we cannot come up with the $250,000
or so to upgrade. At this point, we will probably be
doing the calendar year 2009-10 jump from SQL
Server 2000 to 2008."
"It's too soon. We have just kicked off our upgrade
of SQL Server 2000 to 2005, having about 30 servers.
This will take at least a year due to dependencies
between different applications and having to
upgrade all our third-party software to the version
\[that's\] supported on SQL 2005... The benefits of
upgrading to 2005 in our environment are minimal
as 2000 is very stable, so the main driver is the end
of support for 2000."
"We had done a lot of work in preparation for
upgrading from 2000 to 2005 and were just getting
ready to start, when we heard the announcement
about 2008. Now we'll be leapfrogging 2005 and
waiting for 2008. For us the major issues are DTS
to SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) migration,
user testing, and upgrading the skills of our