Re: SQL versions

Vern: My mistake for falling into that ugly trap in the first place. MS is in
so many things it is sometimes easy to forget that other options exist. At
home, for example, I do NOT use MS Windows, instead use Linux. But, at work,
they are still firmly in the M$ pocket. And the application I support may or
may not work with another database server. They won't test as this is the path
of least resistance for the vendor. Just easier to keep paying M$ than to look
for alternatives, even if they are better performing or *gasp* less expensive. Either way, not my choice.

Walden: Thanks for the mention of the 2008 version. Two (at least) issues come
up: 1) Cost of enterprise license for the two versions. We have something like
40 users that run this application. I was told the per-seat price for the 2005
version was something like 129 dollars (Was told the exact price, but did not
write it down.), an enterprise license was considerably cheaper. I wonder how
the license costs of the two versions compare. 2) The reason I started the
thread in the first place: Vendor wants to use MS SQL 2005. We have MS SQL
2000 now. Would they be doing something odd that would not work on MS SQL 2000
or, for that matter, not work on MS SQL 2008? Think of V5R4 vs V4R5. Anything
that works on V4R5 likely does work on V5R4, but not necessairily the other
way. I will ask the person at work who does the hardware and OS support
about MS 2008.

There was one other strange issue in the hardware requirement for this product:
^G RAM, but only needing MS 2003 for the operating system. I had not initially
caught that. What would they requires more memory than could even be addressed
by a 32 bit OS?


Anyway, thanks so much for the insights. This was not the ideal place to post,
based on the topic, but, as usual, the people on this list cover far more
territory due to needing to support related platforms.

John McKee

Quoting Vern Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

I'm going to bring out my anal attitude

Let us please not refer to MS' SQL Server as merely "SQL" - SQL is a
technology, not a product - SQL is the technology used for database
access in several products, including Oracle, mySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL
Server, Sybase, and, oh yeah!!! DB2 on the i!!!

I know, lots of people thing only of SQL Server when using the term, SQL
= woefully, IMHO.

OK - off my Sunday morning soapbox and off to church to repent!

Vern

John McKee wrote:

I apologize for this question that is unrelated to System i. If somebody can
answer this, or direct me to a site where I can get answers, I would appreciate
it.

An application states that it requires SQL 2005 to run. Two questions
immediately come to mind:

1) Is SQL 2000 not mentioned because there is functionality in SQL 2005 that is
needed, or is SQL 2005 listed as a requirement solely due to the age of SQL
2000?

2) If there are new functions in SQL 2005 beyond what SQL offers, what are the
functions.


It is a long story why I am asking this.

Thanks.

John McKee

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.