Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MSSQL 2005 Finally Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the perhaps-doing-it-right-instead-of-right-now dept.

Databases 318

mnovotny writes "Computerworld reports that Microsoft is finally set to release their belated SQL Server 2005. From the article: 'Despite a two-year delay, several users who have tested the software cited the improved performance and new functionality it brings as positive developments that likely will convince them to upgrade soon.' The free version can be downloaded directly from Microsoft."

cancel ×

318 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Before you release the hounds (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974696)

Before the Anti-Microsoft redirect gets out. Please take into accounts. Most People who choose MS SQL Server already have a windows network, Oracle is to expensive for their needs, MySQL 5 just was released with most of the functionality that was in MS SQL 2000, Not many good tools for PostGreSQL, Easier to integrate with .NET, and gives PHB the warm and fuzzies. I have been working with MS SQL 2000 and I must say I was surprising pleased with it, other then the POS that is called DTS, I never had any problems with SQL server, with it crashing or problems handling a lot of data, or configuring security. My only Fear with MS SQL 2005 is that it will break so much compatibility that we well need to redo a lot of stored procedures and all our working around for DTS.
MS SQL Server Yes it is closed sources, I don't know what type of security holes they will find in it, It is defiantly bloated because it will not fit 5 1/2 single density floppy disk with enough rooms for a 2000 record table. If you already have MS SQL 2000 and in a year or so you need to upgrade it will probably be easer to go to 2005 them migrating to the others.

Re:Before you release the hounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974775)

One would think that the astrotufers that Microsoft hired would know the difference between the word to and too.

Re:Before you release the hounds (1)

robertjw (728654) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974788)

Not to mention definately and defiantly

Re:Before you release the hounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974864)

No entry found for definately.

Did you mean definitely?

Re:Before you release the hounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975064)

or redirect and rhetoric

Re:Before you release the hounds (1)

Enahs (1606) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975054)

Should we mention the blatant error in the .sig?

Re:Before you release the hounds (0, Offtopic)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974817)

"Oracle is to expensive for their needs"...

Oh really? If you want/can run the DN on raw iron, maybe. But if you want to run an OS as well (as most do) then you need to factor in the cost of the OS as well...
http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/beaco n_347.php/ [standishgroup.com]

Re:Before you release the hounds (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974877)

But if you want to run an OS as well (as most do) then you need to factor in the cost of the OS as well...

That's probably why right before it he said is "Please take into account. Most People who choose MS SQL Server already have a windows network". He was hoping trolls like you would then skip over it, but I guess you have to bash MS anytime you can, even if a disclaimer to your point was already in the parent post.

Re:Before you release the hounds (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974888)

Do you have any idea how much Oracle actually costs, compared to a Windows Server licence?

Re:Before you release the hounds (1, Interesting)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974937)

Yes, actually I do.

Re:Before you release the hounds (2, Interesting)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974846)

I never had any problems with SQL server

Yeah? Lucky you! I certainly have.

If you're not using an MS language, you're going to probably be connecting to it using ODBC, which is slow and often buggy.

Also, my pet peeve about it is lack of a date type (as opposed to a DateTime type). This is part of the standard, so it should be in there. Its a pain to have to constantly cast your datetime into a date every single time you use it.

Re:Before you release the hounds (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974964)

No problems for light to medium L^hWAMP work either, although for what I use it for (calendar, job listing, light form submission) flat files and a CGI module for VB4 worked fine for a few years before ?AMP became viable to begin with.

Re:Before you release the hounds (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975107)

If you're not using an MS language, you're going to probably be connecting to it using ODBC, which is slow and often buggy.

You're absolutely right about it being slow. That's why ODBC has been the least favored method for connecting to any data source for about the last decade (since OLE DB came out). It's bugginess is due to the ODBC provider you're using. For instance, connecting to Oracle from a Windows machine using any Oracle written ODBC or OLE DB provider sucks ass. The API's aren't even documented correctly. However, the MS written Oracle drivers have always been much better. Just find a new (OLE DB) driver.

Re: "Not many good tools for PostGreSQL" (5, Informative)

brennz (715237) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975025)

This must be in satire, or ignorance.

Postgresql has a great variety of tools, both OSS and commercial that work great. I've been working on an updated list of all the tools. Here are a few of the most popular admin tools:

PGadminIII
http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/mana ger [sqlmanager.net]

DBvisualizer
http://www.minq.se/products/dbvis/ [www.minq.se]

EMS Postgresql Manager
http://www.sqlmanager.net/products/postgresql/mana ger [sqlmanager.net]

PHPpgadmin
http://sourceforge.net/projects/phppgadmin [sourceforge.net]

Sybase Power Designer
http://www.sybase.com/products/enterprisemodeling/ powerdesigner [sybase.com]

ERWIN data modeller
http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=260 [ca.com]

CASE Studio 2
http://www.casestudio.com/enu/default.aspx [casestudio.com]

Postgresql has a vibrant tool community. If you want more info on Postgresql tools see
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/v2/Guides/PostgreSQ L%20GUI%20Tools/document_view [postgresql.org]

Re:Before you release the hounds (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975160)

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of [flame]war!!!

Yes, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974707)

does it run on Linux?

Probably (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974770)

I think so. [vmware.com]

Here's hoping (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974719)

Here's hoping it went through more testing than VS2005 did [blogspot.com] ...

Re:Here's hoping (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974759)

Microsoft has a serious Beta Testing problem. Partially due to the fact there is little incentive for the Beta Testers to release the bugs, and Microsoft arrogance. Beta Testers should should be rewarded with their work with free copies of the final version, plus they shouldn't have to pay Microsoft for the honor of Beta Testing. Most of the Beta Testers I have seen are people who just want to learn the tool before it is released to the public so they get those jobs that are just popping up asking for people with 2 years of MS SQL 2005 experience.

Re:Here's hoping (4, Insightful)

Swamii (594522) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975158)

The MiniMSFT blog you link to has a tendancy to report the negatives only. For instance, the blog post links to Wesner Moise's post [blogs.com] regarding some VS 2005 bugs he'd found. What is not as well publicized is Wesner's next post [blogs.com] , in which he says,

"Despite the few hiccups, I am enjoying VS 2005 and have been able to work with it productively. VS 2005 is stable and performant, and it's better to have it arrive now rather than later. The runtime is solid, and various products across Microsoft and outside also depend on it being delivered on a timely basis."

Yes, I've found a few minor hiccups in VS2005 as well. But honestly, it's nothing like MiniMSFT would have it seem. I can't speak for everyone, but VS2005 has been solid for us since RTM (we were a MS beta tester from Beta 1 through RTM), and we're very happy with its current form.

Two year delay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974720)

Well, at least they had the foresight to call it MSSQL 2005.

Free 'Express' editions released (5, Informative)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974730)

As well as the free SQL Server Express Edition, Microsoft have also just released the 'Visual Studio Express Editions', available for free [microsoft.com] .

You can download 'web installers' I believe, but ISO images are here [microsoft.com]

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (1)

iamlucky13 (795185) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974800)

I was completely unaware of the free "express editions" of their developer software (or MSSQL). What limitations do these editions have?

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974929)

You could also have downloaded SQL 2000 in a free limited form as well. They changed the name in 2005 to 'express', but they've had that program for quite a while.

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (1, Interesting)

secolactico (519805) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974956)

As far as I know, the free MSSQL has a 2 GB database limitaton. That would be adequate for most developing purposes (I guess you are expected to buy the full fledged SQL for production).

Not being a database admin, I can't comment on the advantages of MSSQL over other SQL servers, but I've heard people say that MSSQL is very resistant to data corruption caused by external factors (I guess they mean, hardware failure or filesystem corruption or the like). Can anybody confirm this?

The biggest are (for SQL) (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975028)

1) 1GB of RAM usage maximum.
2) 1 Processor usabe maximum (unlimited cores though).
3) 4GB total DB size maximum.

There are other limits too, like it can't do some enterprise things like a DB cluster, but the major ones are the size and processing limitation. So it would probably work as a web backend, but wouldn't scale without buying a bigger version.

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (1)

jma05 (897351) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975098)

Among other things, they work for only 1 year. Not a big deal if you are just learning.

Not true (1)

SIGBUS (8236) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975120)

Please read the FAQ [microsoft.com] .

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974802)

Which, believe it or not, actually look like they've had useful new features put into them, instead of fluff.

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (4, Informative)

RonnyJ (651856) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974819)

A quick addition - apparently, you need to register [microsoft.com] with Microsoft to get a product key for these Express editions.

However, it seems as if the ISO images may not need such a product key, as this item from that link states:

If you need to install and use an Express Edition on a computer that is not connected to the Internet, you will need to create an installation CD using the CD ISO (IMG) files that are available on the Express site. The installation CD you create will then allow you to install an Express Edition on a computer that is not connected to the Internet, and that Express Edition will not require a registration key for continued usage.

Open Source making waves... (5, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974828)

As well as the free SQL Server Express Edition, Microsoft have also just released the 'Visual Studio Express Editions', available for free.

Clearly, this (as well as news of Oracle's "free/lite" version of 10g), are good news... that Open Source projects like MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, etc are forcing the "cathedral" software shops to re-examine their ways, since they (Microsoft & others) can't rely on piracy anymore (due to impacted profits) to keep the "pipeline full" and "mindshare". It's good for the closed source developers, and ultimately it will be good for OSS developers, as OSS entries in these fields mature. Competition is good, and the developers benefit.

Re:Open Source making waves... (4, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974954)

Sorry. I hate to burst your bubble, but this isn't something new that OS 'forced' on MS. They have offered a free lightweight version of their database for some time. I've been using the free SQL 2000 version on machines for testing for years.

This isn't some 'new thing' that MS is doing because it's running scared of OSS.

Re:Open Source making waves... (2, Insightful)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975090)

SQL 2005 Express isn't what's new. What's new is Visual * 2005 Express for free. Until very recently, they were saying that they were going to charge something like $50 for each edition. This is what was "forced" on MS. Someone in Microsoft finally clued into the fact that giving away this software would make them far more money than selling it ever would.

On the other hand, expect companies like Borland to be very upset by this move. This will cut into some of their market (what's left of it), and might finally be enough to push them under.

Re:Open Source making waves... (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975149)

The grandparent I was replying too clearly stated that it was "MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL" putting the pressure on MS. Those have everything to do with SQL 2005, and nothing to do with Visual Studio.

What do the charge for the regular version of Visual Studio? A decent amount. $50 is peanuts compared when you add in the cost of media/shipping, etc. They dropped from that tiny amount of profit to none on the lightweight version. Not a huge deal for them.

I guess in your mind they can't possibly decide to give away a lightweight tool for free without being forced to. They can. They did it with SQL 2000 long before any opensource DBs were anything of a threat. Not everything has to revolve around OSS, much as many /.'ers like to believe.

(Disclaimer: I'm a big OpenBSD user/fan. Not against OSS. I just don't like folks deluding themselves about it being the center of the known universe)

Re:Open Source making waves... (1)

krumms (613921) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975223)

VS.NET Express is only free for one year [microsoft.com] .



/me stops download

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (0, Troll)

zufar (603583) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974868)

Proper name would be "Crippleware editions"

Wow.. more mis-information... Again... (4, Informative)

Dan_Bercell (826965) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974917)

Ok, ok, ok... People, we have talked about this last week.

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166 851&cid=13914395 [slashdot.org]

Clearly, this (as well as news of Oracle's "free/lite" version of 10g), are good news... that Open Source projects like MySQL, PHP....

MS HAS ALWAYS OFFERED A FREE DATABASE ENGINE, its no secret. SQl Server 2005 Express is just the new version of this product which has been available for years. Because of its easy transition to Sql Server its used a lot as a started Database for companies trying to sell in the SBM market. A lot of software application make use of MSDE (which is what the engine was called before Express edition)

For more information here http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/default.mspx [microsoft.com]

Now as for the Express editions being free... They are not (someone let me know if I am wrong here). They cost like 40 bucks or so, I had the beta installed on my system, once beta was over it prompted me to register/pay for it within 30 days..etc the usual MS registration.

Re:Wow.. more mis-information... Again... (2, Informative)

Sexy Commando (612371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975003)

It seems they are offering free downloads for one year [microsoft.com] .

Re:Wow.. more mis-information... Again... (1)

The Angry Artist (877090) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975117)

But with BitTorrent, other people can make sure that that one year sure lasts a long time.

Re:Wow.. more mis-information... Again... (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975148)

Just to clarify. The "one year" is for the Express editions of Visual Studio. The free version of SQL Server has been around for years and is not part of this "one year" thing.

Express Editions (0, Offtopic)

everphilski (877346) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975037)

VC++ Express is awesome, the only gripe I have with it is the fact that you can't explicitly add include/link paths using a find box... to add universal include/link paths you need to edit an xml file, and to add include/link paths to a particular project you have to type the path_to_file... its a nitpick I know but otherwise its a great product for free.

-everphilski-

Re:Free 'Express' editions released (3, Interesting)

jalefkowit (101585) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975123)

Yes, if by "free" you mean "free to use for one year [microsoft.com] ":

You said "free for one year" -- what does that mean, exactly? Will you be charging for this later?

We originally announced pricing of Visual Studio Express at US$49. We are now offering Visual Studio Express for free, as a limited-in-time promotional offer, until November 6, 2006.

Do customers who acquire the Visual Studio Express products during the free promotional pricing period have to pay after the first year if they want to continue to use them?

If you acquire Visual Studio Express products within the one-year promotional period, you will enjoy the rights granted in the applicable license at no cost for the term of that license.

That "for the term of that license" sounds like a loophole to me. Anyone seen the licenses that these "free" versions come with? Do they have a time period written into them?

Sigh. Stored procs in C# (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974778)

Stored procedures are one of those things that are like antibiotics or LSD - they're wonderful and valuable when handled carefully and responsibly, and cause big problems when they're not.

The limited stored proc language that SQL server had before was actually a good thing; you could do some limited stuff in the DB. Thus, you weren't often able to give in to the tendency to stick application logic in the database tier.

And this quote pretty much says it all: Raichura said the support for Microsoft's Common Language Runtime technology via Visual Studio will let him avoid having to go to multiple developers with different specialties. "I can natively write stored procedures straight into software," he said. "This increases my resource pool because it reduces the distinction between software developers and architects."

Read: Now, I can pay people less to create a complete fucking pigsty that will perform well enough that the app will appear largely stable.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (5, Insightful)

tonyr60 (32153) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974839)

And paint them even further into a corner such that migration to another DB is next to impossible.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (2, Insightful)

Kentamanos (320208) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974889)

The only time I really get annoyed with the limits of standard SQL stored procedures is when I need an array of values to be passed into it. For instance, there are many times where a stored procedure that uses an "IN" statement could really benefit from passing in an array of values for the "IN". To get around this, you basically have to write a data access layer that creates SQL on the fly.

I'm all about separating "logic" from the data access layer, but simple things like that are probably possible using the C# stored procs.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but this approach is not too dissimilar from what Oracle has done with Java.

Passing in arrays (1)

Cave_Monster (918103) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975019)

After oracle 8 its possible to pass in arrays in your PL/SQL using the varray type. Here's a link [com.com] that shows it in action.

Re:Passing in arrays (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975068)

Having a hard time reading the source code at the moment (is that site non-Firefox friendly?), but I'll have to take a look at it later possibly via some googling of other sites.

It would be great obviously if there was something a bit more "standard" across all manufacturers, but that's good info.

Thanks

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974923)

If you didn't have stored procedures or functions, you couldn't do any of the following:

-user defined type
-functional index
-user defined aggregate
-trigger
-complex constraint

If it's code that maintains your data integrity, and is fundamental to the meaning of the data, put it in the database. Else put in application.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974957)

Amen, brother. C# device drivers are next, followed by a kernel C# interpreter :(

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (4, Informative)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974975)

Keeping the business logic out of the database may be good for you if the only thing your database ever talks to is a web app, but lots of us have databases that talk to a LOT of different applications. Rather than reinvent the wheel implementing the buisness logic in a million apps, we keep it in the database, where it keeps everthing consistant, no matter what app is talking to the database, and where it can run fast.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (1)

wasabii (693236) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975073)

> and where it can run fast.

Until you want to scale and realize you can no longer just farm data logic servers, or web servers, and instead have to invest in large scale databaes clustering. Oops.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975103)

Let's see, cluster a few machines vs rewriting the business logic in a couple dozen different apps, where a misstep in one screws the data for them all. I think I'll just cluster, thanks.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (4, Insightful)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975108)

You must not be into Object Oriented programming where you separate out the logic into tiers: Persistence Layer, Biz Logic Layer and Presentation Layer. Also, you must have been a DB admin before you were an app developer. Or maybe you've never been an app developer.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (2, Interesting)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975201)

I'm well aware of the different layers. I'm also aware that a lot of times places need to have applications that they didn't write inhouse plug into the database. If the only things you are ever going to have interact with the database are apps you write in-house it's one thing. Not all of us are working in that situation.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (1)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975151)

Use libraries to implement common business logic across multiple applications; an application serves is also a possibility. This might also be a place to use an SOA-type service for more complex logic that needs centralization. Don't shove crap in the database.

I do understand that it helps to centralize things, and it keeps idiots from writing mostrously fat clients that treat the database as little more than flat storage. I have recurring nightmares about a VB6 app that weighed in at >100MB with some of the most pessimized database access strategies ever. But sticking all that crap into stored procedures is just moving the mess elsewhere.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975030)

I can see the value in anti-biotics, but LSD?

The value of LSD (1)

Cave_Monster (918103) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975055)

For the days when you want to see a rainbow but there just isnt one in the sky :)

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975035)

And this quote pretty much says it all: Raichura said the support for Microsoft's Common Language Runtime technology via Visual Studio will let him avoid having to go to multiple developers with different specialties.

This is a good thing! Now your app people can talk one to one with your DB people, since they're talking the same language.

To me, this was one of the promises of Java for web apps over MS at the time back in the day. Use Java in JSPs talking to Java objects in the backend, with knowledge sharing happening across developers, etc.

With ASP it was ASP VBScript talking to COM objects written in VB or C++, and VBScript != VB, so even then the VB scripters couldn't talk one to one with backend VB developers. You'd get "we do this" followed by "Yea, that doesn't work for us".

With Java, the whole team is in the same boat, able to share code and expertise easily. That's a WIN in my book.

Obviously, this is less of an issue today with ASP.NET.

Re:Sigh. Stored procs in C# (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975072)

I for one have no plans to use C# for stored procs ;-) Lets remember this is just a new OPTION. Standard SQL (or I should say T-SQL) is still there and is what I plan to use. But hey, who knows perhaps there'll be something I need which just cannot be done with T-SQL (assuming I for some reason need it done in a stored proc), then having the ability to write procs with any .NET language and leverage the .NET framework could be a nice option to have.

Technet and MSDN (1)

Shadowin (312793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974790)

I received a call from Microsoft today to remind me of the Technet and MSDN events this Thursday in Charlotte, NC.

Near the end of the message the lady said that attendees receive a free copy of MS SQL 2005 and Visual Studio 2005 standard editions.

I called one of my friends to tell him but they had closed registration when he went to the website.

Re:Technet and MSDN (3, Funny)

rufuseddy (781982) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974850)

Thats pretty cool. I wish MySQL would give away free copies.......oh wait......!!!!!!

Re:Technet and MSDN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974880)

Could you post any details you may have about this? I live/work in the charlotte area and would be interested in attending. Much thanks in advance!

Re:Technet and MSDN (1)

nxtw (866177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975042)

see MSDN Events [msdnevents.com]

Any ideas on UK availability? (2, Interesting)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974796)

I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that this was already out.. our system admin called our software supplier today and the person on the other end of the line basically said that they have the prices for the product but Microsoft has told them not to actually divulge the pricing information until the end of the month! Excuse me??

So what gives. The product is apparently out.. we want to buy it.. Microsoft have set the prices out.. so can we buy it or what?!

The favourable (p)reviews for SQL 2005 seem to be in stark contrast to those for Visual Studio 2005.. bloated, resource hungry, and bug laden.. apparently.

Re:Any ideas on UK availability? (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975045)

Sure, just send me your credit card billing information, I'll email you a link to the software, and bill you at the end of the month for whatever it costs (which I know but can't tell you yet).

Sounds like ROYAL PRINCE MR UBUKWE got into the retail software business.

Re:Any ideas on UK availability? (2, Informative)

EddWo (180780) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975237)

SQL2005 Prices [greymatter.com]

New clustering licensing (2, Informative)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974812)

We were talking about this today. We have a need to cluster our main Intranet server and our current SQL 2000 Standard license doesn't allow clustering. With Enterprise, you can cluster up to four. That all changes with SQL 2005 - you can have a two node cluster with the standard edition, which is far cheaper.

The catch is whether or not we want to be one of the first servers to adopt SQL 2005. New releases scare the hell out of me, but we've also had some recent downtimes that a clustered server might have helped with.

Decisions, decisions . . .

Re:New clustering licensing (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974949)

This release has been in testing for quite some time. Though I admit to not using it for massively complex queries, I havn't gotten any grief from it.

Here is a snip from the last email I got on it:
Our goal was to have 30 customers deployed on SQL Server 2005 by the time we launched. Today, we have more than 50 customers deployed on SQL Server 2005, including Barnes & Noble, Mediterranean Shipping Company, Xerox, and others in the process of migrating or upgrading their systems. These customers range in size from very small organizations, under five employees, to large enterprises running multi-terabyte mission critical systems. This demonstrates the value companies, large and small, can achieve using SQL Server 2005. We encourage you to read about some of the interesting things these companies are doing today with SQL Server 2005 at www.microsoft.com/casestudies [microsoft.com] .

Cluster What? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975217)

Cluster what? Or perhaps you mean making it highly available. Unless somebody sneaked it by me windows cannot do real clustering.

So... (2, Funny)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974814)

This is really MSSQL 2003?

THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION... (0, Offtopic)

Enchanted FP (906453) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975150)

|\
| \
| \___|\
| ___|o|
| / |/
| /
|/

Is your Penis tiny?
Like Bob Joe's Penis(above)?

Well there's hope fellow super-microscopic penis dude!
Get Viagra or Cialis today OR THE PENIS BIRD WILL KILL YOU!.

My first impression... (5, Informative)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974818)

I installed SQL Server 2005 Enterprise downloaded from the MSDN last week.

The Management Studio Interface is pretty good, although not as responsive as I would like on a 2.8 GHz P4. Thankfully stored procedures can be edited in a non-modal window (in tabs).

SQL server also comes with MSXML 6 and SQLXML4. The upgrade analysis tool is very neat.

Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional is much more CPU intensive than the Management Studio. They do look rather similar.

Microsoft Visual SourceSafe 2005 has an updated inteface, however many screens still look the same.

Re:My first impression... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974914)

Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 Professional is much more CPU intensive than the Management Studio. They do look rather similar.

That's because Management Studio *is* Visual Studio 2005, with different language support.

Free? (3, Insightful)

caluml (551744) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974823)

Free? Only if you buy their other products.

Re:Free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974904)

Not.

Re:Free? (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975132)

I'd imagine that they are just giving away the DVDs right? They aren't actually giving away real licenses, are they?

...great artists ship. (3, Funny)

BandwidthHog (257320) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974842)

From the at-least-it’s-not-December-31-yet dept.

Rejected (-1, Offtopic)

KiranWolf (635591) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974847)

Microsoft releases free Windows development tools Monday November 07, @05:58PM Rejected

you're not grousing, are you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974920)

Note: grousing about rejected submissions is Offtopic and usually gets moderated that way. It happens [slashdot.org] , don't take it personally.

Go to your room!

Coming right up... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974892)

... 400 comments about how Microsoft sucks and this product sucks from a bunch of socially stunted, basement-dwelling "theoretical" left-wingers who will likely never, ever be in a position to use this (or any) software in an enterprise situation, much less make the choice to look elsewhere. Then, they will pretend that MySQL is even in the same league, despite the obvious falsity of such a statement.

Slashdot has become more predictible than Must See TV.

SQL Server Reporting Services and Report Builder (4, Informative)

Larthallor (623891) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974893)

One of the most exciting features in SQL Server 2005 for me is the new Report Builder [microsoft.com] . SQL Server 2005 includes a new ClickOnce WinForms app called Report Builder that allows end-users to design their own reports from a business-user friendly data model. It is very similar to Business Object's WebIntelligence [businessobjects.com] for those of you familiar with that product, but with an apparently more affordable licensing arrangement.

Essentially, the data architect takes the OLTP or data warehouse and abstracts it via metadata into Business entities with which end users are familiar. In Business Objects, this semantic layer is called a Business Universe and in SQLServer Reporting Services it's called the Data Model. Because this semantic layer understands how the data should be put together, it writes the underlying SQL necessary to give the user the answer they want. In principle and demos, it is very slick. We'll soon see how the two stack up in reality at my place of business, as we're setting up both this week to play with.

Re:SQL Server Reporting Services and Report Builde (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975127)

but with an apparently more affordable licensing arrangement.

Yes, MUCH more affordable ;-) Free with your SQL Server license.

New toys (2, Insightful)

MarkNijhof (926299) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974906)

How I love those new toys :) been playing with them for a week or so now. The SQL Server Management Studio is less Access like, with is good :) -Mark

"The free version" (2, Funny)

Caspian (99221) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974910)

The free version can be downloaded directly from Microsoft.

So nice that Microsoft is embracing free software. Where's the SourceForge repository?

Re:"The free version" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974990)

So nice that Microsoft is embracing free software. Where's the SourceForge repository?

That's as in "free beer", as you well know. And he said "free" with a lower-case-f, not the capital-F the FSF use for their brand of "Free", so there's no room for you to misinterpret him.

So what was your point?

In Solvat Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13974935)

SQL Server 2005 Free Version release you!

Re:In Solvat Russia... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975171)

Imagine a beowoulf cluster of these things. I couldn't help it!! There was like more then 20 posts and no beowoulf comment! /.ers are slipping. Oh I get it. They are all downloading the new M$ toys!

Open Source, People (2, Interesting)

KodeJockey (928302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13974953)

I've used both SQL Server 2000 & MySQL 5.0.15 (and some others). Unless you want to make pretty pictures with DTS why wouldn't you decouple yourself from Bill Gates's teat and use MySQL 5? The major difference: limited support for triggers (which are generally a bad idea anyways as they hide code from lower-level developers).

Re:Open Source, People (1)

knewter (62953) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975079)

I completely disagree with the claim that triggers are a bad idea. They seem particularly well suited for handling audit-level operations, and they allow one to create an auditable database without building an independent data access layer. This is good for smaller-but-auditable projects. Also great for a database with a 5-ish year lifetime, as there's no need to anticipate migrating...

Re:Open Source, People (1)

KodeJockey (928302) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975131)

Well, they're not inherently evil, but they introduce a semi-visible interface that isn't explicit in the app code. Stick with transactions, one faulty trigger can really muck things up.

Feature changes from MSDE 2000 to SQL express? (5, Informative)

Precipitous (586992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975007)

It appears that MS has done some interesting feature shuffling in their various free editions.

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/features/com pare-features.mspx [microsoft.com]

Has anyone out their tested out what is available in SQL express as far as job scheduling , DTS (now ETL) and replication?
Does anyone want to flame me for unashamedly using MS SQL?

As best as I can tell from their spec sheet, the following features of MSDE 2000 are not available in SQL Express:
* No job scheduler in SQL express. SQLAgent worked fine in MSDE 2000.
* Replication: MSDE for SQL could public and subscribe (as far as I understand), while SQL Express 2005 can only subscribe.
* They've changed the name of DTS to "Enterprise ETL Platform" or SSIS or something. While I haven't tested it out yet, it appears that DTS functionality is limited to basic import and export. For the really useful stuff (DTS to web services, for example) you need the pro edition.

Added:
* A user interface. MSDE 2000 basically had none. If you didn't have visual studio, or a developer's license to MSSQL, or some 3rd party administration and query tool, you basically had to use osql (command line).
* You get 4GB instead of 2GB.

Now, I have access to a few large corporate MS SQL servers, so this shouldn't really be a problem. However, large corporate servers have complex change-control processes.

Consequently, I rely on the desktop editions for all my ad-hoc stuff, development, and stuff that hasn't quite made it to production. I also run a database for a non-profit on MSDE, and was hoping to keep the replication features while moving up to SQL Express.

Re:Feature changes from MSDE 2000 to SQL express? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975086)

Consequently, I rely on the desktop editions for all my ad-hoc stuff, development, and stuff that hasn't quite made it to production.

So why not stump up for a SQL 2005 Dev licence? They're cheap and that's the full enterprise code. Or get your employers to, and get you an MSDN subscription whilst you're at it :-)

I'm surprised to hear MSDE did replication, I thought that was pay-for. But you ought to manage with normal backups and log backups, right? Or get it hosted on your employer's iron :-)

Free version? (2, Funny)

Bulmakau (918237) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975066)

Free MSSQL?? MySQL... beware ;)
I find it funny that company name products with years/dates when it is rule #2 that doing something will always take two times longer than your worst estimates :D

Two years late, hunh?? (3, Insightful)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975085)

This is a rather old (IBM in the '70s) trick -- promise a new product that will do everything, including cleaning the kitchen sink -- and it's due in a year or so.... or 6 months ... real soon now.

It's used as the eternal carrot... to keep the CTO from moving to a competetor's product that's already there and better. As long as 'real soon now' continues to inch ever closer, you can keep this up for an incredible length of time.

The mantra is: It's easier to stay with our junky product for X months than to go through the pain of migrating to their superior product. -- then, 6 months later, it's X-2 months.

If it finally comes out missing a couple of promised features (cut because 'we had to finally ship something!'), that's OK because it'll be in the next release ((due in X months).
Rinse-repeat.

VS Express 2005 Free *cough* for one year *cough* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975104)

From the FAQ http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/support/ faq/default.aspx#pricing [microsoft.com]

10. How much will these products cost?

We are announcing a pricing promotion for Visual Studio Express - for the first year after the products launch on November 7th, 2005, customers will be able to visit MSDN to download their copy of Visual Studio Express for free!**

Our customers are very excited about the release of these products, so this limited-time download is our gift to the hobbyist, student, and novice community - we're excited to see the amazing applications they'll build!

Note that SQL Server 2005 Express Edition is also a free download. The free pricing for SQL Server Express is not limited to the same one-year promotional period as Visual Studio Express.

[**We plan to launch the non-English versions of the Express products sometime within 2-3 months after the English version launches on November 7th. The same pricing promotion will apply to these products, and will remain in effect for one full year after their respective availabilities.]

When did they change that?

Better get the full setup ISOs now:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/support/ install/ [microsoft.com]

Interesting? (4, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975105)

A database release especially a MS database is about as interesting as somebody releasing a new ftp client.

Sounds great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975135)

But will it run under wine...

meh! Meh! MEH! (3, Interesting)

MagicMerlin (576324) | more than 8 years ago | (#13975176)

great. Microsoft to deprecate t-sql for C# stored procedures. As a bonus they encourage you to not write orr understand SQL at all, well visual studio writes it for you. Well guess what, they want to obscure and redefine what a database is and what it is supposed to be. t-sql is a great language, queries are first class and it is designed from top to bottom to perform quickly and well.

What problem are they trying to solve...I'll tell you what. SQL works well and is defiened by a standards committe outside their control...why don't we all do everything in vb instead. I betcha one of the reasons it took so long to get out was they couldn't make it run anywhere as fast as 2000 without tons of tweaking.

Microsoft SQL too late! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13975216)

I used MSSQL a few years ago. It was *very* slow and disgustingly buggy. In the end we dumped it and wrote a flat file program that ran much faster (1 hour insted of 3 weeks - and yes, we know how to tune an SQL database but MSSQL was beyond hope).

Now they finally have a new version, but too little too late. If the bucks worry you, Oracle now have a free version. Why would you bother my MSSQL?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?