Posted by Stu on 01/06/07 22:00

Erland makes a good point. The essence of any argument about
upgrading is that eventually they will have to upgrade, either to SQL
2005 or some other version. The question is: do they want to be
proactive, and take time to plan it, or do they want to be reactive,
and have their schedule for upgrading dictated by market forces.

None of our vendors that supply SQL Server products require SQL 2005,
but I'm betting that new releases this year will begin requiring SS2005
databases. In other words, our current apps don't require 2005, but
future versions may. I'd rather start planning for that contingency
now than be forced into it by a necessary patch for a vendor software.

I'm not saying that upgrades are the only option; could always buy a
new server for applications that require SS2005.

Stu

Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> Nuwan K (ckid@hotmail.com) writes:
> > Like it or not SQL Server 2000 is a 7 year old product RDBMS now.
>
> 6½ to be precise. :-)
>
> > "If its not broken doesn't fix it" doesn't apply to most IT platforms
> > these days, b'coz of the cost of running legacy/obsolete systems. Plus
> > the cost of employing IT personnel
> >
> > So like it or no Microsoft is going to discontinue support for SQL
> > Server 2000. Therefore your client's got ~ 1 1/2 years to upgrade to SQL
> > Server 2005. (Unless with Extended Support)
>
> To be perfectly honest, I don't think is a very good argument for
> upgrading to SQL 2005. It rather makes the argument "we can be on all
> this update trains, so we wait for the next one". And Microsoft has
> indicated that from now, it's a two-year release cycle for SQL Server.
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[Back to original message]