SQL Server Needs Revision

I can't be more agree with Jim Rapoza on Eweek.

It's true that SQL 2000 is showing every day its age, and Microsoft should had launched a SQL Server 2003 to have the IT market at least be happy ready to wait for the net big release Yukon.

His arguments are strong but full of sense.

Extract:

"

But five years is a bit much. I think I speak for a lot of SQL Server users when I say that a SQL Server 2003 release would have been a good thing. It didn't have to be anything major, just something that addressed security problems more effectively than a service pack and that made SQL Server better equipped to deal with the current reality of Web services and XML.

Instead, we wait. Or not. Because when it comes to a core enterprise database system, living in the past is not an option.

"

Read it here

via Microsoft Watch

 

3 Comments

  • Paschal,



    I don't see a compelling reason for Microsoft to have introduced a SQL Server 2003. SQL Server 2000 performs excellently in our customer's environments. What would we be looking for in an interim release? As was mentioned elsewhere, several add-ins have been released for SQL Server 2000 since it's release.


  • It also depends on how many SQL Server boxes you have. I don't know how many we have, but it's probably around 100 or so. (Production ones).



    We are still upgrading some from 6.5 to 2000. Some are still version 7.



    We are pretty happy with 2000 and are planning for Yukon now.



    So the developer in me wants improvements, but from an operationally point of view, sometimes less releases is better.

  • It's not XML people need, but 'writer doesn't block reader' functionality, or better: MVCC or similar.

Comments have been disabled for this content.