argue why sql2005

[fireball]

well, I need to justify to my client, why to switch to sql2005 form 2000. I
know a lot of 'why it's better', but my client don't really care most of
those aspects.
I need to argue, my client's business gains on that.

Thnaks in advance.

[ZeldorBlat]

Re: argue why sql2005


fireball wrote:

well, I need to justify to my client, why to switch to sql2005 form 2000. I
know a lot of 'why it's better', but my client don't really care most of
those aspects.
I need to argue, my client's business gains on that.
>
Thnaks in advance.

Quite frankly your client is right. Why do you think they should
switch? Oh, right, you don't know. If you don't know then there
couldn't possibly be a compelling reason to do so. Have you had
problems with 2000? Is there some feature in an application that your
client wants that you can only implement with 2005? If you can't
answer those questions then there's really no reason to upgrade -- or,
from your client's perspective, spend the money to upgrade.

[David Portas]

Re: argue why sql2005

fireball wrote:

well, I need to justify to my client, why to switch to sql2005 form 2000. I
know a lot of 'why it's better', but my client don't really care most of
those aspects.
I need to argue, my client's business gains on that.
>
Thnaks in advance.

If they are happy with their existing system then there perhaps isn't
much reason to switch right now.

Consider upgrading if they want to do new development or add a new
application or if they can take advantage of some new features with
their existing system (mirroring for example).

--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP

Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.

SQL Server Books Online:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx

--

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: argue why sql2005

fireball (fireball@onet. kropka.eu) writes:

well, I need to justify to my client, why to switch to sql2005 form
2000. I know a lot of 'why it's better', but my client don't really care
most of those aspects.
I need to argue, my client's business gains on that.

Since we don't know your client's business needs, we can't help you.

As David and ZeldorBlat said, if the client is happy with the system,
there is little reason to change.

But if your client is asking you to add new feature, and you can
confidently say that it would be so much easier to do with SQL 2005,
then you have a selling point. The difficult part is of course that
in many cases the difference is minor. While we as a programmer don't
want to be without row_number() or improved error handling once we've
used it, it's not really sufficient to convince the client to move on.

But here are two-three possible areas where the difference is high
enough:

1) General auditing. This can be easily be done in a generic fashion
with FOR XML and the new xml data type.

2) Any sort of queues - go Service Broker!

3) A heavy use of blobs (text/ntext/image). The new data types makes
it so much easier for you as a programmer, and thus cuts development
costs.

I could probably add a few more, but it gives you an idea what to look
for.

Of course, there will be a day when SQL 2000 reaches end-of-life support,
but it is not going to happen soon, and there might a be yet a new
SQL Server version out by then.





--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarsk og.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

[Jim Andersen]

Re: argue why sql2005

fireball wrote:

well, I need to justify to my client, why to switch to sql2005 form
2000. I know a lot of 'why it's better', but my client don't really
care most of those aspects.
I need to argue, my client's business gains on that.

Maybe some of the security improvements? Like built-in encryption of data.

That would (probably... if it works...) have cut down considerably on my
latest development project.

/jim

[fireball]

Re: argue why sql2005

U¿ytkownik "Jim Andersen" <jba020@politiS LET.dk.invalidn apisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci

Maybe some of the security improvements? Like built-in encryption of data.

this sounds quite reasonable, I quess client is gonna like idea he can have
some data hidden from the world. I seems to be not easy to find anything
what client will be even able to understand :_)

Are there any disadvanatages of using data encryption? Is there any risk I
will loose ability to decrypt data from my database(/backup)?

[Razvan Socol]

Re: argue why sql2005

fireball wrote:

Are there any disadvanatages of using data encryption?

Yes, performance is one (you can't use an index on an encrypted
column).

Is there any risk I will loose ability to decrypt data from my database(/backup)?

Yes, if you forget to backup the certificates.

Razvan

[Razvan Socol]

Re: argue why sql2005

Razvan Socol wrote:

[...] you can't use an index on an encrypted column

Correction: you can't use an index for ordering and range searches. You
can use it for exact searches.

Razvan

[Nuwan K]

Re: argue why sql2005

Hi Fireball

The main reason i'd suggest a client to upgrade to SQL 2005 is the
Microsoft Support Lifecycle for SQL server 2000.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2852

Like it or not SQL Server 2000 is a 7 year old product RDBMS now.

"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)

As a DBA I really would won’t to take the risk of supporting a platform
that’s not supported by the vendor.

Regards

Nuwan

SQL / ORACLE - DBA


*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

[fireball]

Re: argue why sql2005

Uzytkownik "Nuwan K" <ckid@hotmail.c omnapisal w wiadomosci
news:459da872$0 $497

Microsoft Support Lifecycle for SQL server 2000.

ugh I dodn't know it
in practice this means: no more patches after 04.08, - right?

So if hackers find some bug and they use it on 2008-04-09, then it's
deadline indeed, but otherwise - it's 1 1/2 and a while, right?

[Erland Sommarskog]

Re: argue why sql2005

Nuwan K (ckid@hotmail.c om) 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@sommarsk og.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

[Stu]

Re: argue why sql2005

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.c om) 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@sommarsk og.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/prodinf...ons/books.mspx