Today we have a reprint of an editorial from Nov 25, 2005 as Steve is on vacation.

No news yet on SQL Server, but apparently the next version of Exchange will not have 32-bit support. The reason appears to be the improvements in disk I/O because of larger caches, so Microsoft if warning users to validate, test, and prepare for Windows 2003 64-bit.

I guess is makes sense, but if the improvements are really good because of caching, why not push harder on SQL Server? I'd think that it would benefit greatly as well. The demos I've seen definitely show improvement in performance, but they aren't really pushed.

Maybe the reason is that so many SQL Servers are developer and personal editions on desktops and no one wants deployment issues moving between versions. I know there shouldn't be any, but how many developers have told you there shouldn't be any problems? After they've deployed something?

I think SQL Server will see more and more 64-bit installations, but they'll be the minority of installations. Not too many people are playing with it, at least not that I've heard. I'd love to get some 64-bit servers for SQLServerCentral.com and upgrade to 2005, 64-bit just to see how it runs. However the investment just for kicks isn't worth it as we're not stressing out SQL 2K installation at this time.

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