SEO

We are running SQL 7, using Access 2000 as a front end. Our network person
is wanting to migrate to Windows 2003 (we're currently on Windows 2000), and
wants to know if we should migrate to SQL 2003 at the same time. Are there
major changes between SQL 7 and SQL 2003, and how hard of a task would it be
to migrate our single database to a new version of SQL?

Thanks,

Neil

Hi

You would be better to migrate to SQL 2005! Adding this migration will
increase the number of potential issues, but if you test it thoroughly then
you should be ok.
Check out the SQL 2005 Upgrade Advisor
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
and upgrade handbook
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../sqlupgrd.mspx

John

"Neil" wrote:

> We are running SQL 7, using Access 2000 as a front end. Our network person
> is wanting to migrate to Windows 2003 (we're currently on Windows 2000), and
> wants to know if we should migrate to SQL 2003 at the same time. Are there
> major changes between SQL 7 and SQL 2003, and how hard of a task would it be
> to migrate our single database to a new version of SQL?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil
>
>
>

Ummm, do you want to migrate to SQL 2000 or SQL 2005?

MC

"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Y_anf.2725$QQ1.23@newsread3.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> We are running SQL 7, using Access 2000 as a front end. Our network person
> is wanting to migrate to Windows 2003 (we're currently on Windows 2000),
> and wants to know if we should migrate to SQL 2003 at the same time. Are
> there major changes between SQL 7 and SQL 2003, and how hard of a task
> would it be to migrate our single database to a new version of SQL?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil
>

Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
> We are running SQL 7, using Access 2000 as a front end. Our network
> person is wanting to migrate to Windows 2003 (we're currently on Windows
> 2000), and wants to know if we should migrate to SQL 2003 at the same
> time. Are there major changes between SQL 7 and SQL 2003, and how hard
> of a task would it be to migrate our single database to a new version of
> SQL?

There is no SQL 2003. There is SQL 2000 which is very mature now, and
there is SQL 2005 which was released just over a month ago.

While there are vast improvements in SQL 2005 over SQL 2000, migrating
your database to SQL 2005 can very well be a simple task, although there
are some incompatibilities, particularly if you head for compatibility
level 90 (which I recommend).


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx

Hi, Erland. Thanks for your reply. Given the incompatibilities between SQL
2005 and SQL 97, do you think it would be wise to just upgrade to SQL 2000?
Also, any ideas about which one might be better suited for Windows 2003
and/or an ODBC environment (using Access MDB as a front end)? Thanks!

Neil


"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns972AE1D20309BYazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
>> We are running SQL 7, using Access 2000 as a front end. Our network
>> person is wanting to migrate to Windows 2003 (we're currently on Windows
>> 2000), and wants to know if we should migrate to SQL 2003 at the same
>> time. Are there major changes between SQL 7 and SQL 2003, and how hard
>> of a task would it be to migrate our single database to a new version of
>> SQL?
>
> There is no SQL 2003. There is SQL 2000 which is very mature now, and
> there is SQL 2005 which was released just over a month ago.
>
> While there are vast improvements in SQL 2005 over SQL 2000, migrating
> your database to SQL 2005 can very well be a simple task, although there
> are some incompatibilities, particularly if you head for compatibility
> level 90 (which I recommend).
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx

Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
> Hi, Erland. Thanks for your reply. Given the incompatibilities between
> SQL 2005 and SQL 97, do you think it would be wise to just upgrade to
> SQL 2000? Also, any ideas about which one might be better suited for
> Windows 2003 and/or an ODBC environment (using Access MDB as a front
> end)? Thanks!

SQL 97? Do you mean Access 97?

I can't give any advice that involves Access as this is an unknown product
to me.


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:02:36 GMT, Neil wrote:

>Hi, Erland. Thanks for your reply. Given the incompatibilities between SQL
>2005 and SQL 97, do you think it would be wise to just upgrade to SQL 2000?
>Also, any ideas about which one might be better suited for Windows 2003
>and/or an ODBC environment (using Access MDB as a front end)? Thanks!
>
>Neil

Hi Neil,

If you're upgrading anyway (whether from SQL 7 or fram Access 97, I
don't know), 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. (From Access [any
version] to SQL Server [any version] might be more trouble).

The payoff will be bigger if you go straight for 2005 - especially when
you start using the new features. Plus you'll be settled for some time
to come!

--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

I meant SQL 7.

I'm mainly looking for advice re. compatibility with Windows 2003, and
possibly ODBC environments.

Thanks.


"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns9757815ED3247Yazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Neil (nospam@nospam.net) writes:
>> Hi, Erland. Thanks for your reply. Given the incompatibilities between
>> SQL 2005 and SQL 97, do you think it would be wise to just upgrade to
>> SQL 2000? Also, any ideas about which one might be better suited for
>> Windows 2003 and/or an ODBC environment (using Access MDB as a front
>> end)? Thanks!
>
> SQL 97? Do you mean Access 97?
>
> I can't give any advice that involves Access as this is an unknown product
> to me.
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx

Hi, Hugo. Thanks for the reply. See below.

"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@perFact.REMOVETHIS.info> wrote in message
news:1kcit1hfo208tb1pr1quci8o43ob8g1d1s@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:02:36 GMT, Neil wrote:
>
>>Hi, Erland. Thanks for your reply. Given the incompatibilities between SQL
>>2005 and SQL 97, do you think it would be wise to just upgrade to SQL
>>2000?
>>Also, any ideas about which one might be better suited for Windows 2003
>>and/or an ODBC environment (using Access MDB as a front end)? Thanks!
>>
>>Neil
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> If you're upgrading anyway (whether from SQL 7 or fram Access 97, I
> don't know),

It's from SQL 7. We are currently using Access with a SQL 7 back end.

> 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?

(From Access [any
> version] to SQL Server [any version] might be more trouble).
>
> The payoff will be bigger if you go straight for 2005 - especially when
> you start using the new features. Plus you'll be settled for some time
> to come!

I certainly agree with that. The only issue would be if there were a main
difference between upgrading to 2000 vs. 2005. But if upgrading to 2000 or
2005 were more or less the same, then I'd agree that 2005 would be the way
to go.

Thanks!

Neil


>
> --
> Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP

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