December 20, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item 64 bit
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
December 20, 2010 at 10:39 pm
In 2005 when this article was written 64-bit hardware was expensive and not easy to come by so not many people were uing it. Nowadays it is considered commodit hardware and readily available.
I assume 64-bit installs now, and only consider 32-bit if it is absolutely needed. But I try REALLLLLLLLLLY hard not to install 32-bit versions, 64-bit is just better.
CEWII
December 20, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I wonder how this statement holds up now.
I think SQL Server will see more and more 64-bit installations, but they'll be the minority of installations
I know that a vast majority of my servers are 64 bit now. Though in 2005 they were 32 bit.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
December 20, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Agreed, I think SQL 2005 was the transition version. SQL 2000 was like 99% 32-bit, 2005 50/50?, 2008R1/R2 80+%.. Sounds about right to me..
CEWII
December 20, 2010 at 11:56 pm
I was hoping Denali (SQL11) would be 64-bit only, but at least they have clarified its target usage by removing 32-bit AWE, so 32-bit OS servers will only support up to 4GB of system memory.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144262(v=sql.110).aspx
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
December 21, 2010 at 3:16 am
I wonder just how many SQL Server Express installations there are out there doing major workloads--that's 32-bit only (and limited to 1Gb of RAM to boot)! So long as the Express editions exist it's possible they'll never make SQL Server 64-bit only...
December 21, 2010 at 6:04 am
If this is true, and I have no doubt it likely is, this is Microsoft once again living in some dream world...
What about the thousands of small and medium businesses that, especially in this economy, do not have the budgets to switch over to 64-bit machines? Why does Microsoft, throughout its history, become so darn blind to what the business world is really all about?
Is it then really "improvement" when they make a boneheaded decision like this? Or is this more complete blindness to what the business world is really made up of. Its the the latter and they have proved this time and time again. Vista is probably the most glaring proof of this in recent history. We are/were all supposed to be running Vista, right? Wasn't that the plan? Funny, Windows XP gained more and more life after Vista came out. Clearly, Redmond learned nothing from that.
So ok, here comes 64-bit SQL only. What does that mean in the real world? Hold onto those SQL 2005/2008 install CD's because you're going to need them. And while Microsoft marches off into another illusion, the real world will just be running old dependable software.
Microsoft has some of the most intelligent people in the world working for them. Unfortunately, finding any common sense out of Redmond is like trying to find palm trees in the Arctic.
December 21, 2010 at 6:26 am
blandry (12/21/2010)
If this is true, and I have no doubt it likely is, this is Microsoft once again living in some dream world......
So, you didnt notice that this was actually a post from 2002 / 2003? The statement prepare for Windows 2003 64-bit. should have given it away. And if you really dislike Microsoft that much, why do you subscribe to a Microsoft-centric newsletter?
December 21, 2010 at 7:45 am
Yup. It seems that 64-bit is more common than 32-bit today. A lot changes in a few years.
December 21, 2010 at 8:51 am
I wonder how this statement holds up now.
I think SQL Server will see more and more 64-bit installations, but they'll be the minority of installations
Funny it is not true anymore I think we are all x64 in production, my development box from Dell at work is Windows 7 Enterprise x64. There may be few legacy x86 boxes in the system but I am just a developer.
However, if anyone has any pull with Dell, HP, or even Unisys, we're looking for a site sponsor to supply a bit of hardware. I've got all servers from one vendor, but I'd definitely be looking to switch for the right offer.
I was a beta one tester of SQL Server 2000 64bits in 2001, Intel wanted $500.00 for just the Itanium CPU. The people willing to spend a lot on hardware for unpaid software testing were very few. Today Microsoft have decided to stop Itanium support for future development. Where decent engineering fails greed gets the blame for this one.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
December 21, 2010 at 9:36 am
paul.knibbs (12/21/2010)
I wonder just how many SQL Server Express installations there are out there doing major workloads--that's 32-bit only (and limited to 1Gb of RAM to boot)! So long as the Express editions exist it's possible they'll never make SQL Server 64-bit only...
I think the amount of Express installs is quite high proportionally to the rest of the SQL installs. That is a good point.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
December 21, 2010 at 10:57 am
I have not seen an SQLS pro running 32 bit on his (or her) dev station in at least a year.
December 21, 2010 at 11:53 am
I dont understand..
if a company has the money and need to purchase SQL server 2005/2008 and all the licensing that goes with it.
if the next version of SQL came out and was 64-bit only. And this said company had the funds and need to upgrade its SQL installation and all the licensing to go with it... isnt hardware a small portion of that?
how far does microsft have to live in the past? at some point they need to move foraward. Is that 8, 10 or 15 years?
at some point when you are running on 10 year old hardware and want to install the newest version of software... your going to be SOL no matter who created the software.
December 21, 2010 at 12:44 pm
leroy-1092048 (12/21/2010)
. . .if a company has the money and need to purchase SQL server 2005/2008 and all the licensing that goes with it.
. . .
It is wider than that. As I mentioned above, if you are a pro,for 64 bits you better develop under 64 bits. That means upgrades to dev workstations and THEIR software, and suddenly you are facing six digits and the first one is not necessarily '1'.
December 21, 2010 at 3:19 pm
it some point the world and Microsoft has to move forward.
are we saying that developers that currently have 32 bit development platforms will never have 64-bit available to them Ever! Ever?!?
eventually they all will have 64-bit platforms available to them.
so at what point does Microsoft move to a complete 64-bit platform? after everyone is 100% moved off 32bit? they have to draw a line in the sand, and i think if the next version does not include 64-bit support.. thats fine with me.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 38 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply