Posted by Neil on 10/01/89 11:38

Sounds like a plan. Thanks.

"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@perFact.REMOVETHIS.info> wrote in message
news:ct7lt1l2q78ulrbj4jm7p7se9spq00c62u@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:27:25 GMT, Neil wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> Compatibility level 90 means that you unlock all the new features that
> were implemented in SQL Server 2005. Upgrading to SQL Server 2005
> without striving for compatibility level 90 is, IMHO, a bit silly.
>
> Lower compatibility levels are included to make upgrading easier. At
> compatibility level 70, many features still behave the same as in SQL
> Server 7.0. Not all, though - some changes to the core of the DB engine
> were just too drastic to allow mimicking the "old" behaviour.
>
> Upgrading from SQL Server 7.0 to SQL Server 2005 at compatibility level
> 70 means that you have to make only minimal changes - you don't have to
> change the features that are still supported in the compatibility level.
> But this should only be a first step - the next step should be to
> replace old functionality with new functionality, then set the
> compatbility level to 90. And after that, you can begin to unleash the
> true power of all the new features!
>
> --
> Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

[Back to original message]