Vista - Vista flaw could haunt Microsoft

http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510

Microsoft wants a bigger piece of Oracle and IBM's database business, but an oversight in its
new operating system could cost the company plenty.

By Owen Thomas, Business 2.0 Magazine

(Business 2.0 Magazine) -- If you followed Microsoft in the 1990s, you knew it as a company
that deftly moved from strength to strength, leveraging its dominance in one area of software
to command other parts of the tech business.

That company's long gone, folks.

The latest evidence that Microsoft (Charts) has lost its Midas Touch? Its bid for a bigger
piece of the $14 billion database business, a sector now ruled by Oracle (Charts) and IBM
(Charts). Until now, Microsoft has been doing what it does best to attract corporate customers:
It has tied its SQL Server database management software to programs running on Windows
desktops.

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.

So companies looking to install Vista, which went on sale to corporate customers Nov. 30, are
going to have to get their database management software someplace else.

Microsoft has effectively just handed its chief rivals an early holiday present.

All Microsoft, all the time
This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft should be doing if it hopes to give
Oracle and IBM a run for their money. Microsoft should instead have released a Vista-compatible
version of SQL Server as early as a year ago. That way, corporate customers would have had
plenty of time to test it in time for Vista's release.

The SQL oversight is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect Vista to appear in the
workplace until 2008. And it's become yet another sticking point with corporate IT departments
already frustrated by their dependence on Microsoft. In the long run, the lack of SQL support
could delay widespread adoption of Vista even further.

Microsoft's long had a strategy to be everywhere computers are - from home desktops to office
servers. And it's had some success: Currently most database programmers use an older version of
the SQL software called Microsoft Desktop Engine, or MSDE. (While you may not have heard of
MSDE, it's an exceedingly common software component - so common, in fact, that it played a
starring role in the spread of the infamous Slammer worm four years ago.)

So what can companies that adopt Vista do now? Not a whole lot.

Waiting for 'eventually'
They can download the test version of SQL Server and start preparing their database
applications for an upgrade, says Chris Alliegro, an analyst at Directions on Microsoft. But
even that step won't be easy.

"It's not ideal, and it's a pain in the neck," says Alliegro. Before company programmers start
testing SQL's beta, they'll have to identify all of the database applications they're running
that rely on MSDE.

For companies that have acquired other businesses, reorganized divisions, or outsourced IT
personnel, that's a mighty tall order. And here's the rub: Until Microsoft releases a
Vista-compatible version of SQL Server 2005, all that testing will be for naught, since they
won't be able to install it on users' desktops.

So good luck trying to get approval from your company's budget cops. Just imagine the CFO
grilling the CIO about a plan like that: "You want to spend money testing software that you
can't run? And you don't know when you'll be able to run it?"

Microsoft, of course, will get SQL Server 2005 officially running on Vista. "Eventually, most
companies who are running Windows will be running on SQL Server 2005," promises Alliegro.

The key word here is "eventually." Microsoft's customers waited five years for Vista. Now,
they're discovering that they still have to wait for a database component that works with it.

No wonder Google (Charts) is beating Microsoft: This is a company that has forgotten how to
execute its own playbook of launching a coordinated wave of products that all work together.

No doubt Microsoft will get this straightened out - eventually. By then, it just might be time
to launch another version of Windows.

At least no none can blame Microsoft for "disabling" Oracle. They
(Microsoft) have to play by the same security rules that they have built
into the operating system

This should silence some of those companies that are claiming that Microsoft
is taking unfair advantage of a situation. Hear this Symantec, McAfee,
Checkpoint and all you other whine babies.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!



"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:ecoSeiHIHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510
>
> Microsoft wants a bigger piece of Oracle and IBM's database business, but
> an oversight in its new operating system could cost the company plenty.
>
> By Owen Thomas, Business 2.0 Magazine
>
> (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- If you followed Microsoft in the 1990s, you
> knew it as a company that deftly moved from strength to strength,
> leveraging its dominance in one area of software to command other parts of
> the tech business.
>
> That company's long gone, folks.
>
> The latest evidence that Microsoft (Charts) has lost its Midas Touch? Its
> bid for a bigger piece of the $14 billion database business, a sector now
> ruled by Oracle (Charts) and IBM (Charts). Until now, Microsoft has been
> doing what it does best to attract corporate customers: It has tied its
> SQL Server database management software to programs running on Windows
> desktops.
>
> 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.
>
> So companies looking to install Vista, which went on sale to corporate
> customers Nov. 30, are going to have to get their database management
> software someplace else.
>
> Microsoft has effectively just handed its chief rivals an early holiday
> present.
>
> All Microsoft, all the time
> This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft should be doing
> if it hopes to give Oracle and IBM a run for their money. Microsoft should
> instead have released a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server as early as
> a year ago. That way, corporate customers would have had plenty of time to
> test it in time for Vista's release.
>
> The SQL oversight is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect
> Vista to appear in the workplace until 2008. And it's become yet another
> sticking point with corporate IT departments already frustrated by their
> dependence on Microsoft. In the long run, the lack of SQL support could
> delay widespread adoption of Vista even further.
>
> Microsoft's long had a strategy to be everywhere computers are - from home
> desktops to office servers. And it's had some success: Currently most
> database programmers use an older version of the SQL software called
> Microsoft Desktop Engine, or MSDE. (While you may not have heard of MSDE,
> it's an exceedingly common software component - so common, in fact, that
> it played a starring role in the spread of the infamous Slammer worm four
> years ago.)
>
> So what can companies that adopt Vista do now? Not a whole lot.
>
> Waiting for 'eventually'
> They can download the test version of SQL Server and start preparing their
> database applications for an upgrade, says Chris Alliegro, an analyst at
> Directions on Microsoft. But even that step won't be easy.
>
> "It's not ideal, and it's a pain in the neck," says Alliegro. Before
> company programmers start testing SQL's beta, they'll have to identify all
> of the database applications they're running that rely on MSDE.
>
> For companies that have acquired other businesses, reorganized divisions,
> or outsourced IT personnel, that's a mighty tall order. And here's the
> rub: Until Microsoft releases a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server
> 2005, all that testing will be for naught, since they won't be able to
> install it on users' desktops.
>
> So good luck trying to get approval from your company's budget cops. Just
> imagine the CFO grilling the CIO about a plan like that: "You want to
> spend money testing software that you can't run? And you don't know when
> you'll be able to run it?"
>
> Microsoft, of course, will get SQL Server 2005 officially running on
> Vista. "Eventually, most companies who are running Windows will be running
> on SQL Server 2005," promises Alliegro.
>
> The key word here is "eventually." Microsoft's customers waited five years
> for Vista. Now, they're discovering that they still have to wait for a
> database component that works with it.
>
> No wonder Google (Charts) is beating Microsoft: This is a company that has
> forgotten how to execute its own playbook of launching a coordinated wave
> of products that all work together.
>
> No doubt Microsoft will get this straightened out - eventually. By then,
> it just might be time to launch another version of Windows.
>
>
>

Get serious. SQL Server Express is just another one out of hundreds or
thousands of applications that will have to be upgraded to run in Vista.
Big deal. It will be upgraded. And where are the Vista compatible
alternatives for a full-fledged server quality database engine that you can
run on the desktop and are Vista certified?

I am glad Vista wasn't hogtied by trying to be compatible with every
application that ever existed before. It says a lot for Microsoft and the
Vista team that they wanted to push the envelope so much in Vista that even
some of their own products won't work until the release Vista specific
versions of that software.

Vista is a new operating system; a new paradigm. Get new hardware to use
with it! Get new software to use with it! If you want to run DOS
applications, get DOS. If you want to run XP applications, stay with XP.
Don't complain that Vista won't run them.

Good job, Microsoft and the Vista team!

Dale

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:ecoSeiHIHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510
>
> Microsoft wants a bigger piece of Oracle and IBM's database business, but
> an oversight in its new operating system could cost the company plenty.
>
> By Owen Thomas, Business 2.0 Magazine
>
> (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- If you followed Microsoft in the 1990s, you
> knew it as a company that deftly moved from strength to strength,
> leveraging its dominance in one area of software to command other parts of
> the tech business.
>
> That company's long gone, folks.
>
> The latest evidence that Microsoft (Charts) has lost its Midas Touch? Its
> bid for a bigger piece of the $14 billion database business, a sector now
> ruled by Oracle (Charts) and IBM (Charts). Until now, Microsoft has been
> doing what it does best to attract corporate customers: It has tied its
> SQL Server database management software to programs running on Windows
> desktops.
>
> 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.
>
> So companies looking to install Vista, which went on sale to corporate
> customers Nov. 30, are going to have to get their database management
> software someplace else.
>
> Microsoft has effectively just handed its chief rivals an early holiday
> present.
>
> All Microsoft, all the time
> This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft should be doing
> if it hopes to give Oracle and IBM a run for their money. Microsoft should
> instead have released a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server as early as
> a year ago. That way, corporate customers would have had plenty of time to
> test it in time for Vista's release.
>
> The SQL oversight is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect
> Vista to appear in the workplace until 2008. And it's become yet another
> sticking point with corporate IT departments already frustrated by their
> dependence on Microsoft. In the long run, the lack of SQL support could
> delay widespread adoption of Vista even further.
>
> Microsoft's long had a strategy to be everywhere computers are - from home
> desktops to office servers. And it's had some success: Currently most
> database programmers use an older version of the SQL software called
> Microsoft Desktop Engine, or MSDE. (While you may not have heard of MSDE,
> it's an exceedingly common software component - so common, in fact, that
> it played a starring role in the spread of the infamous Slammer worm four
> years ago.)
>
> So what can companies that adopt Vista do now? Not a whole lot.
>
> Waiting for 'eventually'
> They can download the test version of SQL Server and start preparing their
> database applications for an upgrade, says Chris Alliegro, an analyst at
> Directions on Microsoft. But even that step won't be easy.
>
> "It's not ideal, and it's a pain in the neck," says Alliegro. Before
> company programmers start testing SQL's beta, they'll have to identify all
> of the database applications they're running that rely on MSDE.
>
> For companies that have acquired other businesses, reorganized divisions,
> or outsourced IT personnel, that's a mighty tall order. And here's the
> rub: Until Microsoft releases a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server
> 2005, all that testing will be for naught, since they won't be able to
> install it on users' desktops.
>
> So good luck trying to get approval from your company's budget cops. Just
> imagine the CFO grilling the CIO about a plan like that: "You want to
> spend money testing software that you can't run? And you don't know when
> you'll be able to run it?"
>
> Microsoft, of course, will get SQL Server 2005 officially running on
> Vista. "Eventually, most companies who are running Windows will be running
> on SQL Server 2005," promises Alliegro.
>
> The key word here is "eventually." Microsoft's customers waited five years
> for Vista. Now, they're discovering that they still have to wait for a
> database component that works with it.
>
> No wonder Google (Charts) is beating Microsoft: This is a company that has
> forgotten how to execute its own playbook of launching a coordinated wave
> of products that all work together.
>
> No doubt Microsoft will get this straightened out - eventually. By then,
> it just might be time to launch another version of Windows.
>
>
>

Dale wrote:
> Get serious. SQL Server Express is just another one out of hundreds or
> thousands of applications that will have to be upgraded to run in Vista.
> Big deal. It will be upgraded. And where are the Vista compatible
> alternatives for a full-fledged server quality database engine that you
> can run on the desktop and are Vista certified?
>
> I am glad Vista wasn't hogtied by trying to be compatible with every
> application that ever existed before. It says a lot for Microsoft and
> the Vista team that they wanted to push the envelope so much in Vista
> that even some of their own products won't work until the release Vista
> specific versions of that software.
>
> Vista is a new operating system; a new paradigm. Get new hardware to
> use with it! Get new software to use with it! If you want to run DOS
> applications, get DOS. If you want to run XP applications, stay with
> XP. Don't complain that Vista won't run them.
>
> Good job, Microsoft and the Vista team!
>
> Dale

Are you bucking for an MVP award?

Alias

On the other hand, I would have expected that the current MS development
tools would have a certified/compatible version of their new OS's by the
time RTM rolled out. But the beta's that are currently out there for VS2005
and SQL Server 2005 (Dev version; don't know about the Express version) it
allows you to get going.

Clint

"Dale" <nospam@nospam.ever> wrote in message
news:uk$$FyHIHHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Get serious. SQL Server Express is just another one out of hundreds or
> thousands of applications that will have to be upgraded to run in Vista.
> Big deal. It will be upgraded. And where are the Vista compatible
> alternatives for a full-fledged server quality database engine that you
> can run on the desktop and are Vista certified?
>
> I am glad Vista wasn't hogtied by trying to be compatible with every
> application that ever existed before. It says a lot for Microsoft and the
> Vista team that they wanted to push the envelope so much in Vista that
> even some of their own products won't work until the release Vista
> specific versions of that software.
>
> Vista is a new operating system; a new paradigm. Get new hardware to use
> with it! Get new software to use with it! If you want to run DOS
> applications, get DOS. If you want to run XP applications, stay with XP.
> Don't complain that Vista won't run them.
>
> Good job, Microsoft and the Vista team!
>
> Dale
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:ecoSeiHIHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510
>>
>> Microsoft wants a bigger piece of Oracle and IBM's database business, but
>> an oversight in its new operating system could cost the company plenty.
>>
>> By Owen Thomas, Business 2.0 Magazine
>>
>> (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- If you followed Microsoft in the 1990s, you
>> knew it as a company that deftly moved from strength to strength,
>> leveraging its dominance in one area of software to command other parts
>> of the tech business.
>>
>> That company's long gone, folks.
>>
>> The latest evidence that Microsoft (Charts) has lost its Midas Touch? Its
>> bid for a bigger piece of the $14 billion database business, a sector now
>> ruled by Oracle (Charts) and IBM (Charts). Until now, Microsoft has been
>> doing what it does best to attract corporate customers: It has tied its
>> SQL Server database management software to programs running on Windows
>> desktops.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> So companies looking to install Vista, which went on sale to corporate
>> customers Nov. 30, are going to have to get their database management
>> software someplace else.
>>
>> Microsoft has effectively just handed its chief rivals an early holiday
>> present.
>>
>> All Microsoft, all the time
>> This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft should be
>> doing if it hopes to give Oracle and IBM a run for their money. Microsoft
>> should instead have released a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server as
>> early as a year ago. That way, corporate customers would have had plenty
>> of time to test it in time for Vista's release.
>>
>> The SQL oversight is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect
>> Vista to appear in the workplace until 2008. And it's become yet another
>> sticking point with corporate IT departments already frustrated by their
>> dependence on Microsoft. In the long run, the lack of SQL support could
>> delay widespread adoption of Vista even further.
>>
>> Microsoft's long had a strategy to be everywhere computers are - from
>> home desktops to office servers. And it's had some success: Currently
>> most database programmers use an older version of the SQL software called
>> Microsoft Desktop Engine, or MSDE. (While you may not have heard of MSDE,
>> it's an exceedingly common software component - so common, in fact, that
>> it played a starring role in the spread of the infamous Slammer worm four
>> years ago.)
>>
>> So what can companies that adopt Vista do now? Not a whole lot.
>>
>> Waiting for 'eventually'
>> They can download the test version of SQL Server and start preparing
>> their database applications for an upgrade, says Chris Alliegro, an
>> analyst at Directions on Microsoft. But even that step won't be easy.
>>
>> "It's not ideal, and it's a pain in the neck," says Alliegro. Before
>> company programmers start testing SQL's beta, they'll have to identify
>> all of the database applications they're running that rely on MSDE.
>>
>> For companies that have acquired other businesses, reorganized divisions,
>> or outsourced IT personnel, that's a mighty tall order. And here's the
>> rub: Until Microsoft releases a Vista-compatible version of SQL Server
>> 2005, all that testing will be for naught, since they won't be able to
>> install it on users' desktops.
>>
>> So good luck trying to get approval from your company's budget cops. Just
>> imagine the CFO grilling the CIO about a plan like that: "You want to
>> spend money testing software that you can't run? And you don't know when
>> you'll be able to run it?"
>>
>> Microsoft, of course, will get SQL Server 2005 officially running on
>> Vista. "Eventually, most companies who are running Windows will be
>> running on SQL Server 2005," promises Alliegro.
>>
>> The key word here is "eventually." Microsoft's customers waited five
>> years for Vista. Now, they're discovering that they still have to wait
>> for a database component that works with it.
>>
>> No wonder Google (Charts) is beating Microsoft: This is a company that
>> has forgotten how to execute its own playbook of launching a coordinated
>> wave of products that all work together.
>>
>> No doubt Microsoft will get this straightened out - eventually. By then,
>> it just might be time to launch another version of Windows.
>>
>>
>>
>

But those other product teams didn't really know what the final Vista was
going to look like until it was released either.

If you think back to the monopoly suits, Microsoft was accused of using
insider access to the operating system in order to speed the development,
and improve the performance, of their business applications. If the Visual
Studio teams and the SQL Server teams had any more access to Vista code than
their competition did (and I am not saying they didn't have; I have no way
of knowing) then there would have been (or will be) lawsuits.

The issues with Visual Studio 2005 will be resolved as will the issues with
all desktop installable versions of SQL Server 2005.

Dale

"Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:2EC39ADE-88C9-498D-87D5-DA1D35BD6BDA@microsoft.com...
> On the other hand, I would have expected that the current MS development
> tools would have a certified/compatible version of their new OS's by the
> time RTM rolled out. But the beta's that are currently out there for
> VS2005 and SQL Server 2005 (Dev version; don't know about the Express
> version) it allows you to get going.
>
> Clint
>
> "Dale" <nospam@nospam.ever> wrote in message
> news:uk$$FyHIHHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Get serious. SQL Server Express is just another one out of hundreds or
>> thousands of applications that will have to be upgraded to run in Vista.
>> Big deal. It will be upgraded. And where are the Vista compatible
>> alternatives for a full-fledged server quality database engine that you
>> can run on the desktop and are Vista certified?
>>
>> I am glad Vista wasn't hogtied by trying to be compatible with every
>> application that ever existed before. It says a lot for Microsoft and
>> the Vista team that they wanted to push the envelope so much in Vista
>> that even some of their own products won't work until the release Vista
>> specific versions of that software.
>>
>> Vista is a new operating system; a new paradigm. Get new hardware to use
>> with it! Get new software to use with it! If you want to run DOS
>> applications, get DOS. If you want to run XP applications, stay with XP.
>> Don't complain that Vista won't run them.
>>
>> Good job, Microsoft and the Vista team!
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>> news:ecoSeiHIHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510
>>>
>>> Microsoft wants a bigger piece of Oracle and IBM's database business,
>>> but an oversight in its new operating system could cost the company
>>> plenty.
>>>
>>> By Owen Thomas, Business 2.0 Magazine
>>>
>>> (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- If you followed Microsoft in the 1990s, you
>>> knew it as a company that deftly moved from strength to strength,
>>> leveraging its dominance in one area of software to command other parts
>>> of the tech business.
>>>
>>> That company's long gone, folks.
>>>
>>> The latest evidence that Microsoft (Charts) has lost its Midas Touch?
>>> Its bid for a bigger piece of the $14 billion database business, a
>>> sector now ruled by Oracle (Charts) and IBM (Charts). Until now,
>>> Microsoft has been doing what it does best to attract corporate
>>> customers: It has tied its SQL Server database management software to
>>> programs running on Windows desktops.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So companies looking to install Vista, which went on sale to corporate
>>> customers Nov. 30, are going to have to get their database management
>>> software someplace else.
>>>
>>> Microsoft has effectively just handed its chief rivals an early holiday
>>> present.
>>>
>>> All Microsoft, all the time
>>> This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft should be
>>> doing if it hopes to give Oracle and IBM a run for their money.
>>> Microsoft should instead have released a Vista-compatible version of SQL
>>> Server as early as a year ago. That way, corporate customers would have
>>> had plenty of time to test it in time for Vista's release.
>>>
>>> The SQL oversight is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect
>>> Vista to appear in the workplace until 2008. And it's become yet another
>>> sticking point with corporate IT departments already frustrated by their
>>> dependence on Microsoft. In the long run, the lack of SQL support could
>>> delay widespread adoption of Vista even further.
>>>
>>> Microsoft's long had a strategy to be everywhere computers are - from
>>> home desktops to office servers. And it's had some success: Currently
>>> most database programmers use an older version of the SQL software
>>> called Microsoft Desktop Engine, or MSDE. (While you may not have heard
>>> of MSDE, it's an exceedingly common software component - so common, in
>>> fact, that it played a starring role in the spread of the infamous
>>> Slammer worm four years ago.)
>>>
>>> So what can companies that adopt Vista do now? Not a whole lot.
>>>
>>> Waiting for 'eventually'
>>> They can download the test version of SQL Server and start preparing
>>> their database applications for an upgrade, says Chris Alliegro, an
>>> analyst at Directions on Microsoft. But even that step won't be easy.
>>>
>>> "It's not ideal, and it's a pain in the neck," says Alliegro. Before
>>> company programmers start testing SQL's beta, they'll have to identify
>>> all of the database applications they're running that rely on MSDE.
>>>
>>> For companies that have acquired other businesses, reorganized
>>> divisions, or outsourced IT personnel, that's a mighty tall order. And
>>> here's the rub: Until Microsoft releases a Vista-compatible version of
>>> SQL Server 2005, all that testing will be for naught, since they won't
>>> be able to install it on users' desktops.
>>>
>>> So good luck trying to get approval from your company's budget cops.
>>> Just imagine the CFO grilling the CIO about a plan like that: "You want
>>> to spend money testing software that you can't run? And you don't know
>>> when you'll be able to run it?"
>>>
>>> Microsoft, of course, will get SQL Server 2005 officially running on
>>> Vista. "Eventually, most companies who are running Windows will be
>>> running on SQL Server 2005," promises Alliegro.
>>>
>>> The key word here is "eventually." Microsoft's customers waited five
>>> years for Vista. Now, they're discovering that they still have to wait
>>> for a database component that works with it.
>>>
>>> No wonder Google (Charts) is beating Microsoft: This is a company that
>>> has forgotten how to execute its own playbook of launching a coordinated
>>> wave of products that all work together.
>>>
>>> No doubt Microsoft will get this straightened out - eventually. By then,
>>> it just might be time to launch another version of Windows.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:ecoSeiHIHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510
> 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.

Besides developers, who runs SQL Server on desktops anyways? This article
makes no sense at all.

SQL Server 2005 runs just fine on Windows Server 2003. That's all that
matters.

Mike

Quite a few people run SQL Server Express, even if they don't know it. MS
Small Business Accounting, for example, uses it.

Clint

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message
news:FA5C5409-FC4C-44F3-B12D-E02520A61421@microsoft.com...
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:ecoSeiHIHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510
>> 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.
>
> Besides developers, who runs SQL Server on desktops anyways? This
> article makes no sense at all.
>
> SQL Server 2005 runs just fine on Windows Server 2003. That's all that
> matters.
>
> Mike
>

Yeah, well, they could have used the betas, like everyone else. They've had
betas since when, June?

Clint

"Dale" <nospam@nospam.ever> wrote in message
news:uQQBRIIIHHA.924@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> But those other product teams didn't really know what the final Vista was
> going to look like until it was released either.
>
> If you think back to the monopoly suits, Microsoft was accused of using
> insider access to the operating system in order to speed the development,
> and improve the performance, of their business applications. If the
> Visual Studio teams and the SQL Server teams had any more access to Vista
> code than their competition did (and I am not saying they didn't have; I
> have no way of knowing) then there would have been (or will be) lawsuits.
>
> The issues with Visual Studio 2005 will be resolved as will the issues
> with all desktop installable versions of SQL Server 2005.
>
> Dale
>
> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:2EC39ADE-88C9-498D-87D5-DA1D35BD6BDA@microsoft.com...
>> On the other hand, I would have expected that the current MS development
>> tools would have a certified/compatible version of their new OS's by the
>> time RTM rolled out. But the beta's that are currently out there for
>> VS2005 and SQL Server 2005 (Dev version; don't know about the Express
>> version) it allows you to get going.
>>
>> Clint
>>
>> "Dale" <nospam@nospam.ever> wrote in message
>> news:uk$$FyHIHHA.1264@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Get serious. SQL Server Express is just another one out of hundreds or
>>> thousands of applications that will have to be upgraded to run in Vista.
>>> Big deal. It will be upgraded. And where are the Vista compatible
>>> alternatives for a full-fledged server quality database engine that you
>>> can run on the desktop and are Vista certified?
>>>
>>> I am glad Vista wasn't hogtied by trying to be compatible with every
>>> application that ever existed before. It says a lot for Microsoft and
>>> the Vista team that they wanted to push the envelope so much in Vista
>>> that even some of their own products won't work until the release Vista
>>> specific versions of that software.
>>>
>>> Vista is a new operating system; a new paradigm. Get new hardware to
>>> use with it! Get new software to use with it! If you want to run DOS
>>> applications, get DOS. If you want to run XP applications, stay with
>>> XP. Don't complain that Vista won't run them.
>>>
>>> Good job, Microsoft and the Vista team!
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ecoSeiHIHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/14/maga...ion=2006121510
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft wants a bigger piece of Oracle and IBM's database business,
>>>> but an oversight in its new operating system could cost the company
>>>> plenty.
>>>>
>>>> By Owen Thomas, Business 2.0 Magazine
>>>>
>>>> (Business 2.0 Magazine) -- If you followed Microsoft in the 1990s, you
>>>> knew it as a company that deftly moved from strength to strength,
>>>> leveraging its dominance in one area of software to command other parts
>>>> of the tech business.
>>>>
>>>> That company's long gone, folks.
>>>>
>>>> The latest evidence that Microsoft (Charts) has lost its Midas Touch?
>>>> Its bid for a bigger piece of the $14 billion database business, a
>>>> sector now ruled by Oracle (Charts) and IBM (Charts). Until now,
>>>> Microsoft has been doing what it does best to attract corporate
>>>> customers: It has tied its SQL Server database management software to
>>>> programs running on Windows desktops.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> So companies looking to install Vista, which went on sale to corporate
>>>> customers Nov. 30, are going to have to get their database management
>>>> software someplace else.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft has effectively just handed its chief rivals an early holiday
>>>> present.
>>>>
>>>> All Microsoft, all the time
>>>> This, of course, is exactly the opposite of what Microsoft should be
>>>> doing if it hopes to give Oracle and IBM a run for their money.
>>>> Microsoft should instead have released a Vista-compatible version of
>>>> SQL Server as early as a year ago. That way, corporate customers would
>>>> have had plenty of time to test it in time for Vista's release.
>>>>
>>>> The SQL oversight is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect
>>>> Vista to appear in the workplace until 2008. And it's become yet
>>>> another sticking point with corporate IT departments already frustrated
>>>> by their dependence on Microsoft. In the long run, the lack of SQL
>>>> support could delay widespread adoption of Vista even further.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft's long had a strategy to be everywhere computers are - from
>>>> home desktops to office servers. And it's had some success: Currently
>>>> most database programmers use an older version of the SQL software
>>>> called Microsoft Desktop Engine, or MSDE. (While you may not have heard
>>>> of MSDE, it's an exceedingly common software component - so common, in
>>>> fact, that it played a starring role in the spread of the infamous
>>>> Slammer worm four years ago.)
>>>>
>>>> So what can companies that adopt Vista do now? Not a whole lot.
>>>>
>>>> Waiting for 'eventually'
>>>> They can download the test version of SQL Server and start preparing
>>>> their database applications for an upgrade, says Chris Alliegro, an
>>>> analyst at Directions on Microsoft. But even that step won't be easy.
>>>>
>>>> "It's not ideal, and it's a pain in the neck," says Alliegro. Before
>>>> company programmers start testing SQL's beta, they'll have to identify
>>>> all of the database applications they're running that rely on MSDE.
>>>>
>>>> For companies that have acquired other businesses, reorganized
>>>> divisions, or outsourced IT personnel, that's a mighty tall order. And
>>>> here's the rub: Until Microsoft releases a Vista-compatible version of
>>>> SQL Server 2005, all that testing will be for naught, since they won't
>>>> be able to install it on users' desktops.
>>>>
>>>> So good luck trying to get approval from your company's budget cops.
>>>> Just imagine the CFO grilling the CIO about a plan like that: "You want
>>>> to spend money testing software that you can't run? And you don't know
>>>> when you'll be able to run it?"
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft, of course, will get SQL Server 2005 officially running on
>>>> Vista. "Eventually, most companies who are running Windows will be
>>>> running on SQL Server 2005," promises Alliegro.
>>>>
>>>> The key word here is "eventually." Microsoft's customers waited five
>>>> years for Vista. Now, they're discovering that they still have to wait
>>>> for a database component that works with it.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder Google (Charts) is beating Microsoft: This is a company that
>>>> has forgotten how to execute its own playbook of launching a
>>>> coordinated wave of products that all work together.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt Microsoft will get this straightened out - eventually. By
>>>> then, it just might be time to launch another version of Windows.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

"Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
newsF0B8F1A-851B-4953-8C1A-264C1505BB9C@microsoft.com...
> Quite a few people run SQL Server Express, even if they don't know it. MS
> Small Business Accounting, for example, uses it.

So Small Business Accounting is already using SQL Server 2005?

Again, this article is pointless. Vista hasn't even been released for sale
yet. Lots of apps from lots of developers will need updating.

It has always been this way. I remember when Will Zachmann - or was it
John Dvorak? - who pronounced Windows 3.1 "a disaster" because many Windows
3.0 apps needed updating to run on 3.1!

Keep some perspective here, people!

Mike