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!

Vista Not Compatible With SQL Server

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the some-extra-patience-required dept.

Windows 263

kiran_n sent in an article by Fortune's Owen Thomas on Vista not being compatible with SQL Server. An excerpt: "But now Microsoft has a problem. Vista, its long-awaited update to the Windows operating system, can't run the current version of SQL Server. The company is working on a SQL upgrade that is compatible with Vista — called SQL Server 2005 Express Service Pack 2 — but it's in beta and can be licensed only for testing purposes. Microsoft hasn't set a release date for the new SQL program."

cancel ×

263 comments

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

I can't help but wonder... (1, Insightful)

_mythdraug_ (27158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269040)

if people get what they deserve for running a Server application on a Desktop OS.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (3, Informative)

nullforce (743444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269066)

SQL Server Developer Edition probably falls into this category, as well as SQL Server Express. Both of these might be expected to run on a workstation.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (0, Troll)

_mythdraug_ (27158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269078)

I expected that response... just couldn't resist the irony of the comment.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (5, Informative)

mgh02114 (655185) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269108)

people get what they deserve for running a Server application on a Desktop OS.


With all due respect, RTFA:

(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.)

Re:I can't help but wonder... (4, Interesting)

xoundmind (932373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269618)

RFTA
Indeed. And perhaps the real question: Why the hell should we care about the compatability virtues of a workstation SQL server?

Re:I can't help but wonder... (4, Informative)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269278)

I lead the IT department of a small company, and we use SQL Server Express on desktops all the time. Our clients use it as well, since almost all of them are far too small to own a real server (e.g. restaurants, doctors offices, etc.). We ran into this last week when we installed Vista for the first time to see what would happen. Needless to say, we were rather shocked when none of our internally developed apps would work. VERY annoying.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269322)

I think we are all guilty of that one. If you are a developer, there is a good chance you are running one of many server applications for development or testing. How many small companies buy an extra machine just to run the servers they need for dev and testing? Maybe a few but certainly not all. My company I work for is relatively small, but there is certainly enough in our budget to get 1,2 or even more machines for what ever testing we need. Instead, every single developer has a development copy of SQL server installed (I cringe admitting that but it's the truth). Being a M$ shop (yet another cringe, but hey it pays the bills) is not really any different than some *nix development shop. Whether it be MySQL or Apache you have running, technically you are running a server software and running on your desktop, hence my point. People will install servers locally for many reasons, other than testing and development there could be a slue of reasons why, I just can't think of any at the moment, but we all know it's true.

RTFA, dude.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269386)

From TFA:"I'm talking about SQL Server 2005 Express, which is the desktop counterpart of SQL Server - not the server version."

Nobody runs MS Sql server on their desktop. We are talking about SQL server client - namely MS SQL Express.

Re:RTFA, dude.. (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269490)

In our office we are stuck running SQL 2000 on our desktops (ouch I know). SQL Express, accepts client connections, IT'S A SERVER in every sense of the meaning scaled down or not. Mind you I understand what TFA is getting at. Lets state the real point now, one would have thought this would have been tested on Vista already even prior to Express release. I would imagine it was another one of the M$ could give a shit less, produce products now, fix issues later situations typical in the M$ world.

Re:RTFA, dude.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269808)

Okay. I get it now.

And as far as M$ fuck up goes, I am in fact glad to know that. Hopefully it will force my biga$$ corporate idiots to think twice before sucking M$ Vista for one more time.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (3, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269344)

Well, since even Windows server is a desktop OS (it's a server, why is everything done via a GUI and no decent way to script half the things you need to do on it?) it's perfectly reasonable, really. The very name 'Windows' gives it away as a desktop OS, even if they try and tack on the word 'Server'.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269444)

I'd agree except that most boxen now use some sort of GUI for the admins, though the older and more experienced admins still live in command shells and scripting (automation!)

But the question of what constitutes a "server" is normally a question of hardware capacity, not artificial restrictions imposed by multi-layer bundling. The prices for AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Oracle, Sybase, etc. (i.e. both OS and core services) are based on CPU capacity, number of users, and other metrics that have nothing to do with some vague concept of server vs. client. (Plus X-11 and related display technologies reverse the terms anyhow, so they really have no meaning. I prefer digraphs -- data/command comes from here and goes there.)

The add-on modules for most operating systems and products are feature add-ons -- GIS data type package, enhanced application integration/administration packages, developer/compiler package, etc. The only operating system I know of that clips out all the shell scripting, scheduling services, and other components needed to do real work is Windows.

There are no "desktop" or "home" editions of Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, VM/MVS, AS400, or other systems because the concept is irrational. You run the same binaries on a two-way HP-UX desktop as on an 8-32 way SMP server. It's just minor configuration variables that change to tune performance; Microsoft is the only one to try to make you pay for those tweaks.

Or you can download a package that will apply the registry changes and make your desktop act like a "server". To me that just highlights the inanity of the marketting distinctions.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (0, Offtopic)

msobkow (48369) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269504)

If I recall correctly, Bill Gates stated he was trying to emulate IBM back in the '80s. Congratulations!

They've emulated an outdated business model. ;)

Re:I can't help but wonder... (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269730)

There are no "desktop" or "home" editions of Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, VM/MVS, AS400, or other systems because the concept is irrational.

No, but there are Enterprise versions like SuSE or RHEL...

And there's versions designed for end users like Linspire. And there's others like Fedora or OpenSuSE or Ubuntu which CAN work as a server, but generally you don't deploy it to the enterprise...

Sure there's some goofy sysadmins who install gentoo in enterprise situations, but generally this is bad news for the enterprise.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (0, Troll)

XMyth (266414) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269874)

You're cute.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (1)

rmallico (831443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269510)

SQL Server Express is not a server class product... its the next iteration of MSDE which is their desktop/workstation database... why is this a problem running it on your desktop.. its SUPPOSED to run on a workstation... and its been out for a while and SP1 has been out since before Vista RTM'd... so they put out a SP2 to support it.. dunno what is the big deal... modded +1 FUD

Re:I can't help but wonder... (1)

midol (752608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269828)

I don't see how this is a mistake for MS. They get to harvest lotsa $ for the upgraders to the new version. Nice opportunity for the free software community to offer no-cost alternatives, too, if the will is there.

Re:I can't help but wonder... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269896)

SQL Server Express is free.

Someone at MS just screwed up, that's all.

Oh NO! (5, Funny)

anss123 (985305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269044)

I can't run SQL Server on Vista! Christmas is ruined! Thanks for nothing Microsoft >:(

Re:Oh NO! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269348)

It's amazing how a 100% yawnable story like this can be fodder of another brain-dead MS-bashing attempt on Windows.

1. nobody who is using SQL server is going to be in a rush to put it on a newly released OS
2. nobody who is using SQL server is going to be in a rush to put it on a DESKTOP OS
3. nobody who is planning an SQL server is going to be STUPID enough to use anything except Win2003 server... or wait until a new server version is released.

More F/U/D from Slashdot. You can always count on it.

Re:Oh NO! (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269608)


I can't run SQL Server on Vista! Christmas is ruined! Thanks for nothing Microsoft >:(


Hey Santa! It looks like you're going to have to handle that naughty/nice list by hand this year. If I don't get that Ferrari I asked for I'll just assume its a key violation again.

Why? (1)

goodtim (458647) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269054)

Why would you run SQL Server on Vista anyway? Servers don't need shiny graphics.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269222)

How about developers who need to write vista applications that talk to databases? It helps to have a locally running copy of SQL server if you are disconnected from the network so that you can still work.

Re:Why? (1, Redundant)

richi (74551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269242)

Did you actually read TFA?
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.

Re:Why? - For development. (4, Informative)

ziani (255157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269244)

You install the "Express" version (which is what the article is talking about) on a desktop/laptop for development purposes. For example, I'm developing a specialized information tracking application that is intended to run on my company's intranet. Our company is 100% MS shop, so we have to design for SQL Server as the back end. I'm using MS Visual Web Developer 2005 Express to create the ASP.Net "business logic" or "mddleware", and a web-based user interface. Visual Web Developer 2005 Express automatically installs SQL Server Express and integrates nicely.

Just not on Vista, it appears.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269914)

It is not always easy to justify a server in all cases. A good example is WIN-PAK [honeywellaccess.com] security card access control which comes with the desktop versions MS SQL but can be configured to use full MS SQL. It runs just fine on Win XP and in many SMB environments, it is rare you will have more than one person trying to RDP to the system. It looks like Honeywell has released a new version to work with Vista, WIN-PAK SE with VISTA Integration. [honeywellaccess.com]

I believe... (0, Redundant)

ExploHD (888637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269074)

That is called irony.

Re:I believe... (5, Funny)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269100)

Main Entry: irony
Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
Function: noun
1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

Nope, doesn't look like irony to me. Irony would be if this problem was discovered while trying to upgrade Microsoft's own servers to Vista. This is just poor planning and communication between departments.

Re:I believe... (1)

danielk1982 (868580) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269734)

Its the "Alanis Morissette" definition of irony.

Re:I believe... (1)

ExploHD (888637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269846)

I was actually thinking of The Robot Devil from Futurama

If anybody... (4, Insightful)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269088)

If anybody is moving critical databases to an OS that isn't even officially released yet, then they deserve to have their eyeballs poked out with hot, metal pokers, and then promptly fired.

In other breaking news, Oracle does not work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux V.5.

Re:If anybody... (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269132)

If anybody is moving ANY critical piece of software supposed to work, should better think to stay with another OS other than Vista.
Much better if other than Micsrosoft's anything.

Re:If anybody... (5, Insightful)

_mythdraug_ (27158) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269214)

Beg to differ, but the OS has been released to volume customers for about 3 weeks now.

Re:If anybody... (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269358)

OK, then let me re-phrase. Anybody moving an important database to an OS that has been released within the past year should be summarily shot and disemboweled. That's just waaaaay too soon to have any of the bugs worked out. At this point, if I needed to set up MS SQL Server, it would go on Windows 2000 as my first choice, then possibly Windows 2003. I wouldn't consider using Vista for anything more than a home PC for another year (I just started allowing Windows XP into my business recently).

Re:If anybody... (4, Funny)

Basehart (633304) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269650)

"OK, then let me re-phrase. Anybody moving an important database to an OS that has been released within the past year should be summarily shot and disemboweled."

Why can't everybody just get along?

Re:If anybody... (0, Troll)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269594)

I beg to differ... the OS has NOT been released - a beta has been. An unfinished version has been released to businesses, while MS is completing/fine-tuning/fixing numerous portions so that it is "Consumer Ready"... because apparently ripping off businesses with a product they know isnt ready doesnt bother MS. There is a reason why the consumer version isnt out yet - unfortunately MS doesnt think it an important enough reason to not sell to businesses - probably trying to get more $$ in from everyone's end-of-year budget surplusses before that $$ gets rolled to next year or re-allocated as part of next year. Some companies hold off major end of year spending until the next year to show higher profitability. Other companies that budget $$ per year need to spend that money to justify their budget (either to increase it or at least keep it static "Why should we allocate $100,000 towards IT next year when you only spent $80,000?") This allows MS to kill both birds with one stone... grab companies that have to justify their budget so it doesnt drop (or the money doesnt get rolled into next year's budget allowance) and also still be able to grab those companies that will resume major spending when the New Year arrives.

Re:If anybody... (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269674)

If anybody is moving critical databases to an OS that isn't even officially released yet, then they deserve to have their eyeballs poked out with hot, metal pokers, and then promptly fired.

Where I work, we don't even toss stuff in waste baskets anymore, what started as an Affirmative Action hire turned out to be the best Janitor we've ever had.
We had the Machine Shop next door make him a special walking stick that has a point on the end, now he just walks around the office with that walking stick & a bag.
As if that wasn't enough, his dog can make a hell of a pot of coffee.

Re:If anybody... (1)

The Infamous Grimace (525297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269744)

...an OS that isn't even officially released yet...

RTFA. Vista Corporate Edition went on sale in November; it's the Home editions that haven't hit the streets. Since SQL is targeted at corporations, not home users, one might reasonably expect SQL to work with the corporate edition of Vista.

-Peter

Microserfs (-1, Offtopic)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269090)

What has Microsoft ever done profitably, apart from its office suite and its operating system? There may be products out there, but they don't jump out, do they?

Over a decade ago Doug Coupland - in the book "Microserfs" - pointed out that Microsoft had grown in size at the cost of quality. This is just the latest indicator.

Re:Microserfs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269140)

Mice

Re:Microserfs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269272)

Yeah... Vista must have really crappy quality, especially compared to Lunix, which will not be ready for the desktop for another, what, ten years? Or OSX, which corporations don't use for very good reasons?

LOL, ask Munich how their Lunix conversion is going. It's their technological equivalent of the US invading Iraq. Complete quagmire, with no end in sight and no way out. I recommend Munich cut and run from Lunix, while their city still has money, and can possibly still roll back to their old systems.

Re:Microserfs (1)

Morky (577776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269886)

Corporations don't use OS X because business app vendors don't write software for it. Otherwise we in corporations would deploy the shit out of OS X. It has nothing to do with the quality of OS X.

Other Software (4, Insightful)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269110)

SQL Server is definitely not the only existing software that won't work on Vista. Of course, as always, people will swallow the incompatibilities between versions of Microsoft software much easier than they'll swallow the incompatibilities between Microsoft and non-Microsoft software. Likely, many people will express their anger over the incompatibilities, but not attach any hard consequences.

actually far worse (4, Informative)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269118)

Actually, not only does it not work with SQL 2005 but it doesnt work with SQL 2000 either. In fact if you try to install SQL 2000 on vista it will try to stop you with messages saying the software has been tested to be incompatible with Vista. MS has not gone on the record that SQL 2000 will NEVER work with Vista [microsoft.com] . They want everyone to upgrade to SQL 2005 and have no plans to fix SQL 2000. If anyone hasn't used SQL 2005, they have removed DTS packages and the replacement is so horribly broken that simple things like copying a table from one database to another does not work.

Good thing there is windows server 2003 still.

Re:actually far worse (1)

brian1078 (230523) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269310)

If anyone hasn't used SQL 2005, they have removed DTS packages and the replacement is so horribly broken that simple things like copying a table from one database to another does not work.

Have you used SSIS? I've been using it for the past year and have found it to work exceptionally well for "copy a table from one database to another" as well as more complex transformations and business logic. Much more powerful than DTS ever was.

Maybe your problem was a PICNIC [wikipedia.org]

Re:actually far worse (2, Informative)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269428)

No, it does not work. Stop lying. The Transfer SQL Server Objects task does not work and actually performs an incorrect query on the source database. You get a message saying the table you have selected to copy does not exist.
This is knows as the transfer tables hell. example 1 [google.com]

another thread [google.com]

and so on. Just go on google groups and you will see tons of people on the microsoft newsgroups why have been screwed over.

If you have figured out how to change the query that it performs, please let the rest of us know. If you cant do that show some proof of someone actually getting it to work.

 

Re:actually far worse (3, Insightful)

Zebra_X (13249) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269722)

Copy database objects from sql server 2000 never really worked correctly either. Under very simple scenarios it works, but when there are foreign key constraints and many related tables sql server does not usually copy the objects in the correct order, and you get resulting constraint violations which ends up faling the package. My experience has been that it is one of the least reliable ways of moving tables and data between systems. To be frank, basing your release process or relying on it to propogate changes from one environment to another isn't great. No other system would you be able to use this process. Just use SQL scripts and insert scripts like everyone else.

For the most part SSIS is a huge improvement over DTS, it is also much more scalable, and now has it's own dedicated runtime. Components for SSIS are also C# components as opposed to com components under DTS. Theoretically if you code is written well, you can reuse parts of it inside a 2005 DB with the CLR enabled.

"Horribly broken" is really a rather exagerated claim. No one's software is perfect.

Also, it's rather rude to call individuals "liars" when you don't have any evidence that that individual is in fact lying.

Re:actually far worse (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269346)

Actually, not only does it not work with SQL 2005 but it doesnt work with SQL 2000 either. In fact if you try to install SQL 2000 on vista it will try to stop you with messages saying the software has been tested to be incompatible with Vista.

So keep running W2K if you want to use SQL 2k. For a business or server environment, a lot of clients don't need more than than that anyway.

-b.

Re:actually far worse (2, Informative)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269460)

sucks if you are using the development edition on your desktop and your new machine comes with Vista doesnt it? since this is the el-cheapo $18 developer edition, it is fully functional but does not support connections from other machines. There is no option to run it on another machine unless you use remote desktop.

Corporate upgrades from XP to Vista not likely (1)

zifn4b (1040588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269692)

At least not in the near future. For the most part companies who have workstations running SQL 2000 to access environments with servers running SQL Server 2000 are not likely to upgrade to Windows Vista anyway. There isn't really anything in Vista compared to Windows XP that justifies a company to allocate budget money to upgrade all of their workstations from XP to Vista. Microsoft will probably have to use some strong arm tactic like discontinuing updates for Windows XP. It will be a long time before most companies upgrade to Vista. In fact, most companies that get Vista along with their new machines will probably downgrade the Vista license to XP anyway. I just don't see why this is a big deal at all.

Backwards compatibility (2, Insightful)

pebs (654334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269130)

So much for Windows being great for backwards compatibility.

Re:Backwards compatibility (1)

neuro.slug (628600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269354)

Hey! I'm sure you can run Commander Keen perfectly well, after all the work that MS poured into making sure those legacy 16-bit applications. Bah, who uses enterprise-level databases anyhow? That's not the target customer at all.

Seriously--don't you think that the backwards compatibility people screwed up just a bit with their priorities?

Re:Backwards compatibility (1)

Lorkki (863577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269636)

I'm sure you can run Commander Keen perfectly well, after all the work that MS poured into making sure those legacy 16-bit applications.

I'm sure you must've heard that 16-bit support has been dropped from the AMD64-- whoops, I mean "x64" builds of Windows. Oh well, at least we still have DOSBox.

Seriously speaking though, big businesses also still run a whole bunch of what you wouldn't hesitate to call legacy software. Legacy also means it's tried and tested, so they'll much rather sit around and keep on using it than reimplementing. On the other hand, growing requirements and maintenance costs can drive them to upgrade their hardware from time to time - so a backwards-compatible operating system can be a good bait.

Of course, the sensibility of making yourself dependent on such things is a whole different matter.

Re:Backwards compatibility (1)

zifn4b (1040588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269860)

Yup, their priorities are definitely out of whack especially considering that there are people who have implemented backwards compatibility much better than Microsoft and did it for free.

dosbox [sourceforge.net]

This is expected (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269162)

Since when has Microsoft rolled out a new operating system that is [100%] compatible with its own existing software? Even though I am no geek, I expected updated versions of existing Microsoft software to come Vista. So to me, this is expected.

Think of it: Did anyone of you expect the current version of SQL Server to simply play nice with the "new and improved" Microsoft Vista OS, with all enhancements, bell and whistles? Heck, these "enhancements" took more than 5 years to implement! Way more time than was planned. Give me a break!

Misleading Article (5, Interesting)

carlislematthew (726846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269178)

The article is about SQL Server *Express* Edition not working on Vista! This has NOTHING to do with the normal SQL Server edition that doesn't run on "workstation" OSs anyway. The express edition is a local (no network connections) version of SQL Server that developers use to develop against so that they don't need a full server to develop against.

The article implies (and pretty much states) that Vista doesn't work with SQL server, implying that your client/server programs that depend on SQL Server won't work on Vista. They may in fact *not* work, but it has nothing to do with SQL Server!!!

The article is written by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, or they DO know what they're talking about and they wanted to get readers and ad-clicks.

Re:Misleading Article (1)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269262)

MSDE doesn't work on Vista, you need to use SQL Server Express Edition if you are running Vista.

Re:Misleading Article (1)

fwr (69372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269342)

You're mostly right, but not about the no network connections. SQL Server Express defaults to no network connections, but you can easily enable TCP/IP connections.

Must have really bad code (2, Informative)

Anon E. Muss (808473) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269180)

If there's one thing the Windows OS team is good at, it's backwards compatibility. I recently heard that a Win32 app I wrote 10 years ago for NT 3.51 still works on Vista. The SQL Server team must have fucked up something big for their code to fail on Vista.

Re:Must have really bad code (1)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269370)

I recently heard that a Win32 app I wrote 10 years ago for NT 3.51 still works on Vista.

We're running a certain real estate industry program that was written in 1988(!) for Windows 3.1 under Server 2k3. In fact, it's one of the only things that we still use Windows for in that particular office, since it's mostly OS X/Linux. To use the program, people log onto the server via Remote Desktop - fortunately, we almost never have more than 2 people using the program, so we haven't needed to buy extra terminal service licenses.

-b.

Re:Must have really bad code (1)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269628)

have you tested if this app runs op top of Wine ?

Re:Must have really bad code (1)

oohshiny (998054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269480)

Uh, no, Windows is not good at backwards compatibility: the entire OS has changed radically over the last 15 years. There are some compatibility hacks, but old software does not work well on newer versions of Windows.

In contrast, 20 year old UNIX software compiles, runs, and takes full advantage of modern hardware; the APIs have hardly changed because UNIX got them right in the first place. That includes the window system.

Re:Must have really bad code (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269782)

Uh, no, Windows is not good at backwards compatibility: the entire OS has changed radically over the last 15 years. There are some compatibility hacks, but old software does not work well on newer versions of Windows.

In contrast, 20 year old UNIX software compiles, runs, and takes full advantage of modern hardware; the APIs have hardly changed because UNIX got them right in the first place. That includes the window system.
You might want to try that sometime, in practice its not so clear cut on the UNIX side. And yes, I have experience in this area.

Re:Must have really bad code (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269590)

And what kind of app that was, a calculator or a lite version of a large database server? Some old DOS apps still work with Vista, but that's because they don't rely on weird features or specific hardware.
Visual Studio 2005 says it doesn't work with Vista, but the only real problem is that some kinds of apps can't be debugged, something to do with UAC which is quite obvious since UAC was introduced after VS2005 was released. SQL Server probably has some quirks with the firewall or other security features.

Re:Must have really bad code (3, Interesting)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269666)

SQL Server is Microsoft's best code. It is clean and well-designed. This is well-known in Microsoft's circle of internal developers. The current incompatibility on a desktop OS probably stems from performance optimizations. It is often said that operating systems just get in the way of DBMS systems.

It's not a bug, it's a security feature! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269182)

This is simply another component of Microsoft's data protection systems. It keeps idiots from running databases on desktops and laptops that have a tendency to get "lost."

Prevention is the best protection. By keeping sensitive data off of laptops and desktops, Microsoft has done the world a favor.

Re:It's not a bug, it's a security feature! (1)

Coriolis (110923) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269300)

Is this a troll? If not, think, then post. Reading the article would help, too. First, there are there many advantages to having a freely redistributable database engine on desktops. You may already have applications running on your desktop that use MSDE without you realising it. And secondly, as a developer, I find it very handy to have a desktop database to test against.

Consider that one of the first groups to use a new version of Windows will be the developers (,developers, developers), and you can see that this isn't Microsoft's smartest move

(Mind you, not that I was going to upgrade to Vista anytime soon)

Re:It's not a bug, it's a security feature! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269336)

Windows sux! I love typing that, it's the shit. And pretending I do that is even better.

Same as the Zune (0, Offtopic)

Phantombrain (964010) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269184)

The Zune also has the same problem [slashdot.org] .

Seems like Microsoft had some comunications issues between it's departments.

Re:Same as the Zune (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269400)

"Zune also has the same problem"

Christ, it won't run SQL Server either?

Lame

FUD at its best (4, Insightful)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269200)

First of all, the title of the post (and the article's title) are misleading. "SQL Server" (suggesting its full fledged version) was NEVER compatible with Vista, or XP for that matter. It's meant for servers, not desktops.

Second, Vista is NOT RELEASED YET. Despite that, early adopters can download SQL Server Express SP1, which runs fine on Vista, although it is not technically "supported" by Microsoft. In fact, almost all of the issues are easily worked around by running the setup as admin, and SQL Server Management Studio as admin.

For those people who have additional problems, there is plenty of good documentation [msdn.com] on how to get it running, or they can install the beta of SP2, which should be RTM by the time Vista hits the shelves in the end of Jan anyway.

So despite the author's obvious attempts at a sensational title that would get him lots of hits (and, evidentially, posted on Slashdot), his content is almost pure FUD... and pure gold for Slashdot.

Re:FUD at its best (1)

cwiegand (200162) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269286)

Actually, at my work we have licenses for Vista (thanks to Software Assurance!), and CDs for it (thanks to MSDN downloads!). Now, only us IT/IS people are getting it for the time being, but still. It *IS* out.

Re:FUD at its best (3, Informative)

thona (556334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269306)

Your post?

Bet on. One of the most idiotic ever.

See: ::"SQL Server" (suggesting its full fledged version) was NEVER compatible with Vista, ::or XP for that matter. It's meant for servers, not desktops.

Wrong, it was compatible. It is not meant to be used on that - on a poroduction environment, but it is compatible, and a good reason to install it on XP is development. Like having a SQL Server avaialble on your laptop. ::Second, Vista is NOT RELEASED YET.

Bullshit. Serious. Vista was RTM what - three weeks ago? It is even avaialble in a boxed vervion in shops already in limited distribution (i.e. in SOME shops, wide availability is in january). Companies / developers have download access ot the gold/rtm master code for weeks - like my company is rolling out Vista business between christmas and new year on all desktops, and is inthe middle of testing that.

Check your facts. Idiotic statements like yours make open source look bad.

Re:FUD at its best (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269438)

like my company is rolling out Vista business between christmas and new year on all desktops, and is inthe middle of testing that.

I'm just curious... is your company's CIO brain damaged? You guys are gonna have a really shitty welcome back to work after the new year. Hung over, and having to deal with a completely new platform. Ugh. Good luck!

Re:FUD at its best (1)

thona (556334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269818)

::is your company's CIO brain damaged?

No. We are jsut a small software development shop (i.e. less than 20 people) and have to provide vista ready software very soon. So far only test environments were running vista, plus limited developer workstations (doubles).

We take down the whole system between christmas and new year and move out Vista, Office 2007 and Exchange 2007 to our people. ::Hung over, and having to deal with a completely new platform.

Well, if any of our people have a problem with this they will get fired. I mean, it is not like Vista is new here. Our developers so far all use VIsta to one degree or the other - secondary workstations, test environments. We just delayed the mass-rollout until we have a more quiet day, mostly because the whole install takes so damn long and not all stuff was out yet. Exchange will take the better part of a day.

On top - what you mean with "Hung over"? It is a work day. ou appear here not in working conditions you get fired.

Re:FUD at its best (-1, Troll)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269592)

Really, I'm the idiot? Let's see...

Wrong, it was compatible. It is not meant to be used on that - on a poroduction environment, but it is compatible, and a good reason to install it on XP is development. Like having a SQL Server avaialble on your laptop.


Really? Funny, because if you go and look at the list of supported operating systems for SQL Server 2000 and SQL Server 2005, XP is NOT ONE OF THEM. Furthermore, the installer for SQL Server 2000 would PREVENT you from installing SQL Server on XP. You had to fool it to get it to work.

Why not run MSDE on your development machine? For development, MSDE does pretty much everything you'll need to get your work done. If you need to do "real" testing, then guess what, you should have a staging environment. What's that? You don't have a staging environment? Who is the idiot again?

SQL Server Express, which is what this article is actually about, is the replacement for MSDE. As I said, SP1 works fine with some tweaks, and SP2 is in beta.

Bullshit. Serious. Vista was RTM what - three weeks ago?


I've been running Vista RTM since November 17th. It was made available on MSDN / Windows Connect for EARLY ADOPTERS. Vista has NOT been made available to the public, only to people who have access to MSDN, and to certain corporate clients. This group of people is more than capable enough to run an app as admin or to install a beta service pack.

If your company runs full fledged SQL Server on desktops, they're morons for multiple reasons. If they're rolling out Vista without regard to this, then they're completely incompetent.

The fact of the matter is that this article was FUD, pure and simple. And your response to my post showed your idiocy, not mine.

Re:FUD at its best (3, Insightful)

thona (556334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269788)

::Vista has NOT been made available to the public Ah yes. So - what are you getting when you buy vista now, there: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/13/HNmscomp usa_1.html [infoworld.com] More info: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=21919 [itbusinessedge.com] It is not in wide distribution, but it is out. You an walk intoa CompUsa NOW and get a copy. ::It was made available on MSDN / Windows Connect for EARLY ADOPTERS Bullshit. It was made available. That simple. SOME are early in adopting, but it is the real RTM version. Sure, driver support through third party is crap, but that is not going to change inthe next 30 days. It is the RTM version. The versionsin the shop will be identical to the released images- it just now takes time to get them manufactured and into the distribution. ::If your company runs full fledged SQL Server on desktops, they're morons for multiple reasons. So, I am a moron? Let me get this straight - how else am I supposed to make SQL Server development woork wih reporting services and/or SSIS on my laptop without internet connection? Not all uses of a server product are - for prouduction use. ::And your response to my post showed your idiocy, not mine Let me guess -yyou are american and thus do not value the reality.

Re:FUD at its best (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269606)

Vista was released for MSDN subscribers a month ago as well for business customers two weeks ago. The final build was compiled forty days ago. What's more, the SQL Server developers probably ran Beta and RC versions of Vista so they should have been developing the solution for at least a month.

Not an issue, Windows is not a server OS anyways.. (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269210)

And obviously even Microsfot knows that very well. Otherwise this mistake woul be stupid in epic proportions. And while I think that MS has reached some pressy impressive hights in OS design supidity, they are not that supid....

Re:Not an issue, Windows is not a server OS anyway (1)

rsanta74 (1003253) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269426)

Doesn't matter. I know of more than a few non-techies who will be affected by this issue. For one thing, most of the high end financial software is heavily dependent on SQL Server. These data-centric apps rely on it just to even function. I know for a fact that this issue will impact countless accountants, implementers, financial consultants, and not-for-profit organizations. None of these users or institutions require servers or server material. It's just the nature of their business that requires them to have such a utility. Either way, it's only a non-issue for one reason. Companies are not the same as the average end user. You and I might adopt early whereas companies are usually slow to upgrade. By the time they do upgrade to Vista and their software is Vista compatible, this SQL Server issue will be long sorted out. Upgrading one machine is expensive enough. Try upgrading a whole office worth. I know of respectable, profitable companies that are still on Win2K or WinME. The fact that this is a "server" product is of little consequence. Any OS newer than WinME is likely based off of that pro oriented Win2K foundation anyway. Whether or not the end user uses SQL Server is of less consequence than the fact that the core app should support it by its basic design. A pro-level OS should support pro-level needs, regardless of the end user's level of proficiency.

Backwards Compability? Is that so? (1)

Soiden (1029534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269230)

Now I wonder what the people who said Windows really worries for backwards compability have to say now. Surely, they'd find something to say :P

I am running SQL Server Standard 64 bit (2, Interesting)

SeeManRun (1040704) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269254)

I dunno what the problem is, I am running SQL Server 2005 64 bit Standard edition on Vista Ultimate RTM. Works fine. Only using it because the application I am developing uses ODBC to the Jet engine which has now been deprecated according to MS, so I had to try something else. Seems to work fine, though I don't use it too in depth yet.

Re:I am running SQL Server Standard 64 bit (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269472)

Jet has been depricated or ODBC? Oy! Do you happen to have a link to any more info? I just got finished writing an app with an Access back end (easy and cheap). Not that it would be tough to port over, but Access does have some non-ansi standard SQL, and if I'm going to have to switch over to MSDE or PostGre, then I'd rather plan for that now.

Re:I am running SQL Server Standard 64 bit (4, Interesting)

quazee (816569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269876)

Although there is no official word from Microsoft about Jet deprecation, Microsoft has stopped actively developing Jet.
There are numerous clues which may indicate Jet deprecation:

1. Jet is not ported to x64 platform, and probably will never be, according to MS devs.
You can only install 32-bit Jet 4.0 SP8 on an x64-based Windows OS.
Since Jet is an in-process component, it is not possible to use a Jet database in a 64-bit application.

2. Access 2007 uses its own, non-redistributable database back-end, codenamed Ace. Jet databases are supported only for legacy reasons.

3. Jet libraries have been removed from MDAC 2.8 package. You have to install Jet 4.0 separately.

4. Many newer MS articles and whitepapers suggest using SQL Server 2005 Express as opposing to Jet, as a superior technology.

Frost p1st! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269288)

can be like While the project of the warring to the original to decline for of an admittedly America. You, shall we? OK! ffel an obligation of an admittedly are there? Let's of OpenBSD. How all servers. Coming Jesus Up The *BSD is dying Yet Baby take my RAM) for about 20 ME! It's official marketing surveys walk up to a play anyone that thinks resulted in the another cunting The point more insisted that 200 running NT Something that you

shouldn't it be the other way round? (1)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269320)

Vista Not Compatible With SQL Server

[Pointless nitpicking]
Surely, applications are (or are not) compatible with an OS, and not the other way around. An OS does (or does not) support an application.
[/Pointless nitpicking]

Just for clarification (3, Informative)

Espectr0 (577637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269398)

This is about the desktop version (SQL Server Express). Companies don't run that, so this isn't much of a big deal. The regular SQL Server works fine.

Re:Just for clarification (1)

Harlockjds (463986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269596)

companies don't run it? most companies that do sql server development DO run it on the developers systems so they can develop.

Lame (5, Insightful)

nwoolls (520606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269406)

This crap is getting lame. I'm seeing more and more unfounded "articles" on here because they have to make sure they get the stories Digg has. Newsflash folks. 99% of the articles on Digg are fanboy crap. This one is no different.

What's funny is there are already numerous comments here, but apparently NONE of those judging and commenting have actually tried what the article seems to be talking about. MSSQL Server 2000 and 2005 run *just fine* under Vista. There may be some minor compatibility problems and yes, the installer warns of these, but you can click right through that. Maybe some issues crop up if you tried to use it as a full fledged server solution as is, but for development purposed they work *just fine*.

Plus, this article is talking about MSSQL Server 2005 Express, which is the local, chopped up locked down version. The rest of the versions work just fine, plus there will be, soon enough, updates to increase the compatibility.

Please keep this kind of crap off Slashdot. It's fine to love OS and hate MS. But at least get your facts *sort of* straight. This is just way off the mark.

Re:Lame (4, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269736)

Worse is, if someone DARED say something similar about Linux, everyone would be up and arm against them. Like if we saw a "MySQL doesn't work on the new version of Ubuntu!" or something. People would flip, -EVEN- if MySQL was only in some ultra-unstable-experimental-of-doom branch.

(Shrug) So, they rushed Vista out prematurely... (0)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269456)

...while publicly saying they weren't. So, what else is new?

Does anyone believe for an instant that nobody at Microsoft noticed this until after the product was released? I'd bet money it was on explicit checklists of release criteria and someone overruled the technical, SQA, and project management staff because they were afraid of getting a chair thrown at them...

Re:(Shrug) So, they rushed Vista out prematurely.. (1)

anzev (894391) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269832)

Actually, Vista is not out yet, it's just RTM! Which means it's released to manufacturing. Sure, companies can download it, but it's not meant for production use. But your average Joe cannot get it (at least not legally!). As such Vista is also not supported officially by Microsoft (at least not fully), and companies should obviously not move production machines to Vista. That would be idiotic. As far as compatibility goes, I think it's fair to expect this kind of behaviour. It was the same with Visual tudio; it doesn't work. The reason behing it AFAIK is the security that is said to be Vista. I obviously don't know how much of that is true, but If you think about it from a LOGICAL perspective instead of flamebait-one, you'll see that if they really made improvments on various low-level things than it's only logical they broke software which could potentially be unsafe.

This though raises another issue, why is SQL server unsafe, but hey... that's another issue.

I also agree with a lot of previous posters who think that such articles should not be posted to Slashdot simply because the editors think that Vista is not good. If you have a founded base for an article, great, but wrtting in sensationalist style will leave a lot of us stop reading this page. It's long since stop being news that matters and is more like Yellow pages for geek news.

I also think it's pathetic most people say "Vista sucks" before they actually even tried it out. So what if you use Linux? Who cares? So what If I use Windows? WHO CARES! But give the opposite side a benefit of doubt (which regularly fanbody don't).

SQL Express vs SQL Server (5, Insightful)

swalters1 (1008477) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269512)

For those unaware this is primarily a concern for people who develop stand alone applications that currently use SQL Express.

Why use SQL express? It's more stable and more flexible than just using ODBC to connect to an Access database file. Plus you can use all other features that you can not use in Access. It's also the defacto standard for Visual Studio 2005 developers so it gets a lot of use now adays in development. It's also far easier to use than installing the clients for Oracle or MySQL and reduces your program's foot print. (1.2MB vs 35 MB)

I actually use this, and when testing Vista didn't run into a single problem with it in it's current state. (It installed and ran fine under Beta 1 and 2 although it warned you that it could be unstable, it seems in RC and RTM they actually added it to the "Can't install" list)

And there's more than one way to connect to a database, SQL express isnt' the primary route, so the article is being VERY presumptious about impact on the industry. It's not writen by someone who knows the difference between SQL server (The server app that runs on Windows Server 2000, 2003 and uses a client program to handle the connections to a server) and the SQLExpress App (For use in stand alone programs and development environments and will not allow connections from any machine other than the host machine)

It's also amazing that the author of the article thought that you wouldn't test seperately on both platforms. He makes it sound like having to test on Xp then on Vista is a bad thing. Honestly, if you arn't testing on both and on Windows 2000, you're not doing your job right.

Is it important? Yes, it sucks to have apps that I was testing under Vista Beta 1, that I can no longer test because of the "no-install" flag. But SP to the rescue!

As for using Oracle vs MS-SQL, which is the bigger point. Well. having to deal with both at work I can tell you, MS-SQL is far easier to maintain and manage and back up. Oracle still has far too many legacy items in 9i and 10 that require "special" treatment. Not to mention that it's error reporting system is pointless 90% of the time, and we have to hand step everything we do to figure out why we're getting an error instead of a single error message that says, "OCA-XXXXX: Column can not hold data" instead of "ORA-XXX: 'DOCNAME' is too long for column." You can imagine what a pain Oracle is when you've got an SQL statement that a page long. I won't even go into how unfriendly Oracle's support is. Half the time you ask them for help the answer is "If you were an Oracle trained admin you'ld know that." How about, "If you put it in the manual, I'd already know that. Or if your people would reply to emails without the snotty tone I'd know that." Ug...

Sorry about the rant, enjoy!

Ironic (3, Interesting)

Broken Bottle (84695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269544)

It's kind of ironic that SQL won't run on Vista when Vista was originally slated to have a file system BASED ON SQL. They must have had some serious issues with that file system :)

Minesweeper (1, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269630)

As long as it runs Minesweeper and Solitaire, It'll do about as much as we've got a right to expect from Microsoft.

Any difference between client and server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269634)

Come /. You can do better than that. At least get the facts right in your summary. The article talks about SQL server client called "Sql server express" and not the whole fucking SQL server. There is a big fucking difference between SQL server and SQL server express for fuck sake.

I use MS Sql on day to day basis (vendor recommendation), and I hate to use it. But at least report the facts. There is a difference between a server and a client!!!!

SQL Server Express is the shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269864)

Yes, this article is a bit misleading.

Anyway, SQL Server Express is pretty badass. It's a relatively light-weight, stripped-down version of its big brother. It is ridiculously easy to prototype database applications; in fact, it's probably too easy (the VB of RDBMS?). Access is a fucking joke and SQL Server is a bit heavy on the enterprise side of things; SQL Server Express is somewhere in the middle (much closer to Server than Access, thankfully) and is perfect for smaller companies or independent development (it's free). It also integrates quite well with the Visual Studio Express editions (also free).

thi5 FP For GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17269888)

OS. Now BSDI is Don't be a sling empire in decline, From one folder on consistent w1th the battled in court, what they think is Daaren Reed, which

SQL Express Edition (1)

arnonym (582577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17269894)

To all those guys labeling SQL Express Edition 'not corporate':

A lot of mobile applications in the business world (CRM, ERP) use the desktop versions of 'real' DBs. Oracle has an Express Edition too. Mobile in this case means notebooks or tablet PCs, allowing offline use of business applications. Sales reps in the pharma-business for example rely heavily on this DBs.

So the topic of this article IS quite important. However: MS will fix this with SP2.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?