« Documentation issues--feedback requested. | Main | Question of the Day: Data Disappears from new SQL Server Database »

SQL Server 2000 NOT "Supported" on Vista

According to this article Microsoft plans to further erode acceptance of Vista by not “supporting” any version of SQL Server other than 2005 SP1. This means existing SQL Server customers running older versions (the vast majority) will have a choice. Upgrade to SQL Server 2005 SKUs and bear the expense to redesign, recode, retest, and redeploy or not move to Vista. This is not that easy (as some might lead you to believe). Take MSDE for example. It supports replication subscriptions—SQL Server Express does not. The question is, what does “support” mean? Does it mean that Microsoft won’t let MSDE or SQL Server 2000 install on Vista? I don’t know—but I’m going to find out.
If you add to this the inability of many existing XP systems to upgrade at all (they require a new OS and complete reinstall of installed software) I foresee a dismal beginning to the Vista OS. Perhaps it’s really just a games platform designed for Betty and Bob consumer and the OEMs who want an OS that makes their existing platforms obsolete so they can sell replacement iron.


TrackBack URL for this entry:


Have they changed what SQL Express supports? According to SQL Server 2005 Books online, Feature comparison between MSDE and SQL Server Express, SQL Express supports Snapshot, Merge, and Transactional subscriptions. What they dropped from MSDE was being able to use it as a Snapshot or Merge Publisher.

Nice summation of the situation. I mention this in this week's Log Buffer, and I'll be interested to hear how your Vista experiment goes.


It seems that developers can install SQL Server 2000 on Vista but not expect to get PSS support. I expect this will make many IT managers uneasy (to say the least) about installing Vista until these issues are resolved.

I just heard from a reliable MS contact that Vista will NOT (repeat NOT) let SQL Server 2000 install. I just tried it on the 5472 beta and no, it does not install.
Frankly, I think this is a landmine in Vista's path. While it might not be too late to defuse it, I expect if they don't figure something out and soon, Vista is pooched--but that's just my opinion. People buy systems to run applications--not fancy operating systems. If their paid-for applications won't run, they'll wait until they do. We saw this from the earliest days of the PC industry. When the IBM 5150 first shipped everyone laughed until they discovered that Lotus 123 would not run on their fancier boxes--with better processors and bigger color screens. All of those companies like Tandy, Wang, Digital, Telex, CPT and others bit the dust except Compaq that created a virtual clone. Will they never learn...

Hi - for anybody stuck in the situation of having installed vista and now unable to access a local copy of sql server 2000 (and have a day job to do) try this -

1) Go to control Panel then users accounts and select "Turn User Account control on or off" also refered to as UAC in some posts.
2) Reboot PC

Then try to start SQl Server 2000 - for me it failed due to an account issue on the SQL serivice so I had to
3) Go to Control Panel then Administritive Tools and select "Services", find the MSSQLSERVER and change/reenter the account to use to run it (including password)

Worked for me

I will leave the debate over the rights and wrongs of doing this to others, I have a day job.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)