Longhorn is delayed.....
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1546151,00.asp
How about late 2005 or early 2006 for a reality check?
There is nothing of significant R.O.I. in Yukon to justify the switch from
SQL2000 to Yukon right now.
Thus, it's a BIG "NOT ENOUGH!" that programmers can write .NET, C# and
VB.NET code in SQL Server...
just how many procedures need to be done that way to justify a $50,000 price
tag? ZERO or many as many as I can count one one hand, 5?
Unless, I port ALL my code into SQL Server, then I can see it as being
significant.
Whatever needs to be done is being done right now.
Thus, why should I rewrite something that already works anyway?
And before anyone even attempts to reply, state the R.O.I. where there is an
existing SQL SErver 2000 and justify the switch and where it can't be done
some else with the same COST.
and don't feed me any of that XML nonsense....the only thing right now is
BLOGS and that's it after 5 years of constant propaganda and that's FREE,
which means zero profit.
HIPPA can be done other ways beside XML and it's also a lot faster and
simplier.
XML was designed for "unknown" data, not KNOWN data structures like HIPPA
Why should I describe something that I already know what it's going to be
anyway? Get the point?
"Mark Janssen" <ma*********@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:c6**********@news5.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
CT wrote: Sometime in 2005 is the latest...
That sucks, I was hoping to use it on my new website :(.
Mark
