Mm, what's that smell, Microsoft SQL Server 2005? Yes, it's death

Microsoft is once again warning administrators that the end-of-life date for SQL Server 2005 is now just six months away. Redmond on Tuesday sent out a reminder to companies that its 2005 database server edition will officially be considered out of support on April 12, 2016. This means SQL Server 2005 systems will no longer be …

[Stu 18]

All fine and dandy

Unless of course your ancient business software was written using a sql server 2000 (80) compatibility level...

But of course at least you can run that in sql 2008 - not in 2012 and presumably not in 2014 if you can still get those versions.

Never had any uptime issues with 2005, 2008 or 2012. Worst performance issues was shoddy sql code and crappy "treat it like a file" dump it all into c# objects and do all the sorting / joining / calculating etc there. I don't understand why you still want an sql server at that point....

[Danny 14]

Re: All fine and dandy

I imagine a lot of people using MSSQL2005 would probably be able to migrate off to MySQL rather than fork out for new MSSQL

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, there's the rub...

Better integration with Azure

MS are really wanting your data to slurp aren't they....

Not every business wants to put their data into WAS/Azure/whatever cloud and then have said service go down just when you are trying to do an end of year run.

What does the microprint in the EULA say about outages then?

We had someone come visiting ostensibly to do a license audit. Once that was done and we were found to be compliant talk went onto how much we could save by putting the data into the Cloud.

The boss soon sent him on his way when he showed MS bod one paragraph of a contract we had with [redacted] that stated 'Data belonging to [redacted] must under no circumstances be stored in premises that are not under the direct control of [redacted]'.

"I suppose that is a no then?"

Fail....

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Ah, there's the rub...

I can integrate with mainframes, Unix, old boxes running Lotus Notes, or even a really old Sinclair Spectrum via Spectranet if I want to. I don't want to, so I don't. But it's nice to know I could if I needed to.

[AMBxx]

Sad to see it go

SQL 2005 was a great upgrade from SQL2000. SSIS was a bit rough and ready, but at least it was there.

Not convinced all the advances since then have been worth getting too excited about. Especially as so many of them are limited to the Enterprise Edition.

[deadlockvictim]

Re: Sad to see it go

The In-Memory-OLTP in SQL Server 2014 looks as if it is the start of something very promising. Once they get referential integrity (it ain't got no support for foreign keys...) within it sorted out — as well as all of the other notable omissions — it looks to be the most worthwhile addition to SQL Server that I can remember (v6.5 back in 1999).

[Hans 1]

>Mm, what's that smell, Microsoft SQL Server 2005? Yes, it's death

Mm, what's that smell, Microsoft SQL Server 2016? Yes, it's death

MS Access daemon's abortion!