|
|
Posted by Neil on 01/27/06 10:27
Hi, Hugo. Thanks for the reply. See below.
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@perFact.REMOVETHIS.info> wrote in message
news:1kcit1hfo208tb1pr1quci8o43ob8g1d1s@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:02:36 GMT, Neil wrote:
>
>>Hi, Erland. Thanks for your reply. Given the incompatibilities between SQL
>>2005 and SQL 97, do you think it would be wise to just upgrade to SQL
>>2000?
>>Also, any ideas about which one might be better suited for Windows 2003
>>and/or an ODBC environment (using Access MDB as a front end)? Thanks!
>>
>>Neil
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> If you're upgrading anyway (whether from SQL 7 or fram Access 97, I
> don't know),
It's from SQL 7. We are currently using Access with a SQL 7 back end.
> then I'd recommend you to go for SQL 2005. Every upgrade
> you ever do will require you to deal with SOME incompatibilities. But
> from SQL 7 to SQL 2005 should be relatively easy.
Erland mentioned "compatibility level 90" as possibly entailing some
incompatibilities. Would you concur?
(From Access [any
> version] to SQL Server [any version] might be more trouble).
>
> The payoff will be bigger if you go straight for 2005 - especially when
> you start using the new features. Plus you'll be settled for some time
> to come!
I certainly agree with that. The only issue would be if there were a main
difference between upgrading to 2000 vs. 2005. But if upgrading to 2000 or
2005 were more or less the same, then I'd agree that 2005 would be the way
to go.
Thanks!
Neil
>
> --
> Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|