SQL Server 2005 Express Beta messes up your SQL Server 2000, BEWARE

> THIS IS NOT BETA, this ALPHA!!!

Oh brother, I'll echo Tibor's sentiment. If you install beta software on
production machines, don't cry to the vendor.

Please post to the SQL Server Express newsgroup. What does this have to do
with the .net framework, vb.net, c#, and programming in SQL Server?

Jul 21 '05 #6

andrew lowe

"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

ERROR after uninstalling SQL Server 2005 Express

I get this message,

SQLDMO has not been registered. Please re-run your setupand contact your
system administrator.

http://weblogs.asp.net/sqlexpress/ar...04/172956.aspx

hth
andrew

Jul 21 '05 #7

Simon Smith

On 05 Jul 2004 17:06, "ik" wrote:

http://www.angelfire.com/space/usenet/

--
Simon Smith
simon dot s at ghytred dot com
www.ghytred.com/NewsLook - NNTP for Outlook

Jul 21 '05 #8

Cowboy $Gregory A. Beamer$ [MVP]

You seem to have a problem with playing around with beta software on
machines that you cannot afford to have problems with, as this is the second
set of threads where you have LOUDLY complained about how dumb Microsoft is.
IMO, installing betaware (from anyone) on a production machine is a very
ignorant and/or stupid maneuver.

As we are a group that is horrible at reading readme files, where it tells
you not to install betas on production machines, the first time is
understandable. We pull out our media and get going. IN all fairness to the
manufacturer, we realize it was our mistake and move on. You seem to have a
problem with the idea that you could be at fault one iota.

It is a great service, for me, to have access to products before release. It
helps me stay ahead of the crowd when the final release is out. But, if I
were Microsoft, I would consider stopping the public betas, largely because
of people who complain when a public beta is released.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************
"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

ERROR after uninstalling SQL Server 2005 Express

I get this message,

SQLDMO has not been registered. Please re-run your setupand contact your
system administrator.

GREAT!!! ReInstalled SQL SERVER 2000 after playing around with SQL Server
2005...

Snap In Failed to Initialize,
Name: Sql SErver Enterprise Manager
CSLID: (00100100-1816-11D0-8EF5-00AA0062C58F)

THIS IS NOT BETA, this ALPHA!!!
Year 2006 here we come.....

Jul 21 '05 #9

Samuel L Matzen

Cowboy,

Well said. My sentiments exactly.

-Sam Matzen
"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) [MVP]" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote
in message news:e7**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

You seem to have a problem with playing around with beta software on
machines that you cannot afford to have problems with, as this is the second set of threads where you have LOUDLY complained about how dumb Microsoft is. IMO, installing betaware (from anyone) on a production machine is a very
ignorant and/or stupid maneuver.

As we are a group that is horrible at reading readme files, where it tells
you not to install betas on production machines, the first time is
understandable. We pull out our media and get going. IN all fairness to the manufacturer, we realize it was our mistake and move on. You seem to have a problem with the idea that you could be at fault one iota.

It is a great service, for me, to have access to products before release. It helps me stay ahead of the crowd when the final release is out. But, if I
were Microsoft, I would consider stopping the public betas, largely because of people who complain when a public beta is released.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************
"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
ERROR after uninstalling SQL Server 2005 Express

I get this message,

SQLDMO has not been registered. Please re-run your setupand contact your
system administrator.

GREAT!!! ReInstalled SQL SERVER 2000 after playing around with SQL Server 2005...

Snap In Failed to Initialize,
Name: Sql SErver Enterprise Manager
CSLID: (00100100-1816-11D0-8EF5-00AA0062C58F)

THIS IS NOT BETA, this ALPHA!!!
Year 2006 here we come.....

Jul 21 '05 #10

First off, MICROSOFT, doesn't listen you and there is definite proof of that
over and over again.

To even think that a README and a BETA disclaimer allows you to put
something out that they should have already tested on their owe in house
server shows how out of touch your are with the real world.

When you put out a BETA, why not test it on lots and lots other microsoft
computers first. I got these bugs immediately...there are so many bugs, but
to screw up SQL Server 2000 on the same machine, COME ON?

Of course it's on the development machine!! I am not going to dedicate an
entire computer to testing a beta, NITWIT!!!

I am also smart enough to NOT put it on production, BUT OF COURSE, you, MR.
MVP, know all about production, RIGHT? WRONG, YOU DON'T know anything about
production because if your are an MVP because you can't be in two places at
the same time and since you spend all you time answering the same questions
over and over again, you can't actually be doing REAL WORK, nitwit.....

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) [MVP]" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote
in message news:e7**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

You seem to have a problem with playing around with beta software on
machines that you cannot afford to have problems with, as this is the second set of threads where you have LOUDLY complained about how dumb Microsoft is. IMO, installing betaware (from anyone) on a production machine is a very
ignorant and/or stupid maneuver.

As we are a group that is horrible at reading readme files, where it tells
you not to install betas on production machines, the first time is
understandable. We pull out our media and get going. IN all fairness to the manufacturer, we realize it was our mistake and move on. You seem to have a problem with the idea that you could be at fault one iota.

It is a great service, for me, to have access to products before release. It helps me stay ahead of the crowd when the final release is out. But, if I
were Microsoft, I would consider stopping the public betas, largely because of people who complain when a public beta is released.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************
"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
ERROR after uninstalling SQL Server 2005 Express

I get this message,

SQLDMO has not been registered. Please re-run your setupand contact your
system administrator.

GREAT!!! ReInstalled SQL SERVER 2000 after playing around with SQL Server 2005...

Snap In Failed to Initialize,
Name: Sql SErver Enterprise Manager
CSLID: (00100100-1816-11D0-8EF5-00AA0062C58F)

THIS IS NOT BETA, this ALPHA!!!
Year 2006 here we come.....

Jul 21 '05 #11

> Of course it's on the development machine!! I am not going to dedicate an

entire computer to testing a beta, NITWIT!!!

What are you whining about? Did someone hold a gun to your head and force
you to install the software? GROW UP!

Jul 21 '05 #12

Samuel L Matzen

ik,

whew, such passion.

-Sam Matzen
"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

First off, MICROSOFT, doesn't listen you and there is definite proof of that over and over again.

To even think that a README and a BETA disclaimer allows you to put
something out that they should have already tested on their owe in house
server shows how out of touch your are with the real world.

When you put out a BETA, why not test it on lots and lots other microsoft
computers first. I got these bugs immediately...there are so many bugs, but to screw up SQL Server 2000 on the same machine, COME ON?

Of course it's on the development machine!! I am not going to dedicate an
entire computer to testing a beta, NITWIT!!!

I am also smart enough to NOT put it on production, BUT OF COURSE, you, MR. MVP, know all about production, RIGHT? WRONG, YOU DON'T know anything about production because if your are an MVP because you can't be in two places at the same time and since you spend all you time answering the same questions over and over again, you can't actually be doing REAL WORK, nitwit.....

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) [MVP]" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM> wrote in message news:e7**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
You seem to have a problem with playing around with beta software on
machines that you cannot afford to have problems with, as this is the second
set of threads where you have LOUDLY complained about how dumb Microsoft

is.
IMO, installing betaware (from anyone) on a production machine is a very
ignorant and/or stupid maneuver.

As we are a group that is horrible at reading readme files, where it tells
you not to install betas on production machines, the first time is
understandable. We pull out our media and get going. IN all fairness to

the
manufacturer, we realize it was our mistake and move on. You seem to have a
problem with the idea that you could be at fault one iota.

It is a great service, for me, to have access to products before
release. It
helps me stay ahead of the crowd when the final release is out. But, if

I were Microsoft, I would consider stopping the public betas, largely

because
of people who complain when a public beta is released.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************
"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
ERROR after uninstalling SQL Server 2005 Express

I get this message,

SQLDMO has not been registered. Please re-run your setupand contact your system administrator.

GREAT!!! ReInstalled SQL SERVER 2000 after playing around with SQL

Server 2005...

Snap In Failed to Initialize,
Name: Sql SErver Enterprise Manager
CSLID: (00100100-1816-11D0-8EF5-00AA0062C58F)

THIS IS NOT BETA, this ALPHA!!!
Year 2006 here we come.....

Jul 21 '05 #13

Sammy

Does any one know why SQL 2005 is coming withouy any UI?
when is the UI going ot be released? What is the purpose of this BETA
without UI? i understand that u can get Data Explorer from Studio 2005.
Is it also available with 2005 Express Edition?

"Samuel L Matzen" wrote:

ik,

whew, such passion.

-Sam Matzen
"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
First off, MICROSOFT, doesn't listen you and there is definite proof of

that
over and over again.

To even think that a README and a BETA disclaimer allows you to put
something out that they should have already tested on their owe in house
server shows how out of touch your are with the real world.

When you put out a BETA, why not test it on lots and lots other microsoft
computers first. I got these bugs immediately...there are so many bugs,

but
to screw up SQL Server 2000 on the same machine, COME ON?

Of course it's on the development machine!! I am not going to dedicate an
entire computer to testing a beta, NITWIT!!!

I am also smart enough to NOT put it on production, BUT OF COURSE, you,

MR.
MVP, know all about production, RIGHT? WRONG, YOU DON'T know anything

about
production because if your are an MVP because you can't be in two places

at
the same time and since you spend all you time answering the same

questions
over and over again, you can't actually be doing REAL WORK, nitwit.....

"Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) [MVP]" <No************@comcast.netNoSpamM>

wrote
in message news:e7**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
You seem to have a problem with playing around with beta software on
machines that you cannot afford to have problems with, as this is the

second
set of threads where you have LOUDLY complained about how dumb Microsoft

is.
IMO, installing betaware (from anyone) on a production machine is a very
ignorant and/or stupid maneuver.

As we are a group that is horrible at reading readme files, where it tells you not to install betas on production machines, the first time is
understandable. We pull out our media and get going. IN all fairness to

the
manufacturer, we realize it was our mistake and move on. You seem to have
a
problem with the idea that you could be at fault one iota.

It is a great service, for me, to have access to products before

release.
It
helps me stay ahead of the crowd when the final release is out. But, if

I were Microsoft, I would consider stopping the public betas, largely

because
of people who complain when a public beta is released.

--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
************************************************
"ik" <ik**@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uX*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> ERROR after uninstalling SQL Server 2005 Express
>
> I get this message,
>
> SQLDMO has not been registered. Please re-run your setupand contact your > system administrator.
>
> GREAT!!! ReInstalled SQL SERVER 2000 after playing around with SQL

Server
> 2005...
>
> Snap In Failed to Initialize,
> Name: Sql SErver Enterprise Manager
> CSLID: (00100100-1816-11D0-8EF5-00AA0062C58F)
>
>
>
> THIS IS NOT BETA, this ALPHA!!!
>
>
> Year 2006 here we come.....
>
>
>
>

Jul 21 '05 #14

Bradley M. Small

Wow, I guess Beta means nothing to some people. I can certainly remember
back to when there weren't such wide open Beta's and it was difficult even
to get a Beta copy of anything much less something like SQL server.

I can even remember some beta licenses that required a full disk format
before installation.

It's BETA it can and may wipe out your whole system. If you can't risk the
system you are putting it on, then don't put it on, and wait for a release
version.

It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in your
pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.

Jul 21 '05 #15

> Does any one know why SQL 2005 is coming withouy any UI?

Because it wasn't complete.

when is the UI going ot be released?
Soon.
What is the purpose of this BETA without UI?

You have sqlcmd, you can also manage it with SQL 2000 tools. If it's not
useful to you yet, don't use it until the UI is available!

Talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth... CHOMP!

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Jul 21 '05 #16

Chris Hohmann

"Bradley M. Small" <BS****@XNOSPAMXmjsi.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in your
pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.

Even if you can afford to lose it, don't bet it on roulette. Horrible vig.
Find yourself a 10 times odds craps table during off hours. Closest thing to
a fair shake you're likely to find in a casino. But that's neither here nor
there. Your point is well taken.

Jul 21 '05 #17

showme

When does a BETA become a VIRUS?

Like if BETA breaks so many things, it might as was well be a virus then?

Looks like a VIRUS, breaks stuff like a VIRUS, it's a virus!

Giving it a "Ohhh Ahhhhh" name like BETA had better mean it's not a virus OR
act like a virus.

Otherwise if it acts like a Virus, it should be called a Virus.

"Bradley M. Small" <BS****@XNOSPAMXmjsi.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

Wow, I guess Beta means nothing to some people. I can certainly remember
back to when there weren't such wide open Beta's and it was difficult even
to get a Beta copy of anything much less something like SQL server.

I can even remember some beta licenses that required a full disk format
before installation.

It's BETA it can and may wipe out your whole system. If you can't risk the
system you are putting it on, then don't put it on, and wait for a release
version.

It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in your
pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.

Jul 21 '05 #18

Colin Barnhorst

Viruses seem come in many forms here.

"showme" <sh****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

When does a BETA become a VIRUS?

Like if BETA breaks so many things, it might as was well be a virus then?

Looks like a VIRUS, breaks stuff like a VIRUS, it's a virus!

Giving it a "Ohhh Ahhhhh" name like BETA had better mean it's not a virus
OR
act like a virus.

Otherwise if it acts like a Virus, it should be called a Virus.

"Bradley M. Small" <BS****@XNOSPAMXmjsi.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Wow, I guess Beta means nothing to some people. I can certainly remember
back to when there weren't such wide open Beta's and it was difficult
even
to get a Beta copy of anything much less something like SQL server.

I can even remember some beta licenses that required a full disk format
before installation.

It's BETA it can and may wipe out your whole system. If you can't risk
the
system you are putting it on, then don't put it on, and wait for a
release
version.

It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in your
pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.

Jul 21 '05 #19

> Like if BETA breaks so many things, it might as was well be a virus then?

One major difference: you knowingly install a beta, and can choose not to do
so if you're going to be such a crabass about it.

Even with all this whining from you from different aliases, I'd rather have
it this way than not have access to the software at all. Guess you must not
have been around then, when your first test drive of new software was on
release day...

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Jul 21 '05 #20

So far you have not shown that the beta was designed in a knowingly fashion
to harm your operating system or access and reveal to outside sources your
data (which is what a virus does). All you have demonstrated is that you are
a pre-teen or teenager that found some free (to you at least) software and,
as you did not take even the most rudimentary steps to protect an existing
installation, attempted to install it without following ALL the instructions
and therefore scragged your current installation. You also have demonstrated
you are not a professional and if you work for anyone then I pity them for
the waste of money.

--
Andrew C. Madsen
Information Architect
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
"showme" <sh****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

When does a BETA become a VIRUS?

Like if BETA breaks so many things, it might as was well be a virus then?

Looks like a VIRUS, breaks stuff like a VIRUS, it's a virus!

Giving it a "Ohhh Ahhhhh" name like BETA had better mean it's not a virus OR act like a virus.

Otherwise if it acts like a Virus, it should be called a Virus.

"Bradley M. Small" <BS****@XNOSPAMXmjsi.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Wow, I guess Beta means nothing to some people. I can certainly remember
back to when there weren't such wide open Beta's and it was difficult even to get a Beta copy of anything much less something like SQL server.

I can even remember some beta licenses that required a full disk format
before installation.

It's BETA it can and may wipe out your whole system. If you can't risk the system you are putting it on, then don't put it on, and wait for a release version.

It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in your
pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.

Jul 21 '05 #21

WTH

> To even think that a README and a BETA disclaimer allows you to put

something out that they should have already tested on their owe in
house server shows how out of touch your are with the real world.
Your poor decision
When you put out a BETA, why not test it on lots and lots other
microsoft computers first. I got these bugs immediately...there are
so many bugs, but to screw up SQL Server 2000 on the same machine,
COME ON?
Your ignorance

Of course it's on the development machine!! I am not going to
dedicate an entire computer to testing a beta, NITWIT!!!
Your poor decision
I am also smart enough to NOT put it on production, BUT OF COURSE,
you, MR. MVP, know all about production, RIGHT? WRONG, YOU DON'T
know anything about production because if your are an MVP because you
can't be in two places at the same time and since you spend all you
time answering the same questions over and over again, you can't
actually be doing REAL WORK, nitwit.....

Your remarkable ignorance

WTH

Jul 21 '05 #22

showme

Don't be so arrogant to add the "Information Architect" to your signature.

Whether it wasn't knowing made to harm the system doesn't give Microsoft the
right to offer such crappy and dangerous code to begin with. Just because a
drug is in the last testing stages of clinical trials should allow it kill
someone.

You guys think are so smart, but first look at your own crappy and
unreliable systems before the complete nonsense you spit out.

You call me not a professional, but it's OK to you that one of the last
stage clinical drug trials kills someone as long as it has a disclaimer,
"beta"
The fact you are accepting crappy software for a beta shows the type of
professional you are. Crashing and screwing up other programs on someone
else's system is OK as long as you have the beta disclaimer.

Professionals don't rely on disclaimer labels like "betas" to justify
screwups. They actually make sure it doesn't happen to begin with.

But of course, "Mr. Information Arrogant", you wanted to have some humble
pie today just like some MVP's do all the time here at this newsgroup.

So put down your "Dry Erase" markers from your Ivory Whiteboard and come
down and put your fingers to the keyboard for once and code something on
your computer that totally needs to be reformatted because it has a beta
that damages your computer like a virus does.

"Andrew Madsen" <an***********@harley-davidson.com> wrote in message
news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

So far you have not shown that the beta was designed in a knowingly fashion to harm your operating system or access and reveal to outside sources your
data (which is what a virus does). All you have demonstrated is that you are a pre-teen or teenager that found some free (to you at least) software and, as you did not take even the most rudimentary steps to protect an existing
installation, attempted to install it without following ALL the instructions and therefore scragged your current installation. You also have demonstrated you are not a professional and if you work for anyone then I pity them for
the waste of money.

--
Andrew C. Madsen
Information Architect
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
"showme" <sh****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
When does a BETA become a VIRUS?

Like if BETA breaks so many things, it might as was well be a virus then?

Looks like a VIRUS, breaks stuff like a VIRUS, it's a virus!

Giving it a "Ohhh Ahhhhh" name like BETA had better mean it's not a
virus OR
act like a virus.

Otherwise if it acts like a Virus, it should be called a Virus.

"Bradley M. Small" <BS****@XNOSPAMXmjsi.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Wow, I guess Beta means nothing to some people. I can certainly remember back to when there weren't such wide open Beta's and it was difficult

even to get a Beta copy of anything much less something like SQL server.

I can even remember some beta licenses that required a full disk format before installation.

It's BETA it can and may wipe out your whole system. If you can't risk the system you are putting it on, then don't put it on, and wait for a release version.

It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in your
pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.

Jul 21 '05 #23

showme

WRONG, poor decision by Microsoft to put out BETA when it's really ALPHA.

Now, beta users will spend a lot of their time fixing their computer instead
of testing the beta.

See the difference?

Now, what were you saying?

"WTH" <sp*******@Ih8it.com> wrote in message
news:OJ**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

To even think that a README and a BETA disclaimer allows you to put
something out that they should have already tested on their owe in
house server shows how out of touch your are with the real world.

Your poor decision
When you put out a BETA, why not test it on lots and lots other
microsoft computers first. I got these bugs immediately...there are
so many bugs, but to screw up SQL Server 2000 on the same machine,
COME ON?

Your ignorance

Of course it's on the development machine!! I am not going to
dedicate an entire computer to testing a beta, NITWIT!!!

Your poor decision
I am also smart enough to NOT put it on production, BUT OF COURSE,
you, MR. MVP, know all about production, RIGHT? WRONG, YOU DON'T
know anything about production because if your are an MVP because you
can't be in two places at the same time and since you spend all you
time answering the same questions over and over again, you can't
actually be doing REAL WORK, nitwit.....

Your remarkable ignorance

WTH

Jul 21 '05 #24

WTH

showme <sh****@hotmail.com> bored us with:

WRONG, poor decision by Microsoft to put out BETA when it's really
ALPHA.

Now, beta users will spend a lot of their time fixing their computer
instead of testing the beta.

See the difference?

Now, what were you saying?

Not true. You'll notice that the OP's ridiculous comments appear to stand
out from nearly all the others. Whether that is from the Beta or from
his/her own carelessness we will never actually know; however, some things
can immediately be attributed to poor decision making from the OP:
(1)Installing a beta product on a development machine which is in turn
dependent upon that product (I assiduously avoid this.) (2)Assuming that a
Beta product won't have installation bugs. (3)Assuming that the Microsoft
SQL Server team has unlimited machine configurations and time to test upon
(hmmm, why would they bother with a Beta then?) (4)Assuming that an SQL MVP
in this ng would not know anything about a production environment, lol.

Basically a whole lot of ASSuming being done by the OP. Can you hear what
I'm saying?

WTH

Jul 21 '05 #25

Chris Hohmann

"WTH" <sp*******@Ih8it.com> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

showme <sh****@hotmail.com> bored us with:
WRONG, poor decision by Microsoft to put out BETA when it's really
ALPHA.

Now, beta users will spend a lot of their time fixing their computer
instead of testing the beta.

See the difference?

Now, what were you saying?

Not true. You'll notice that the OP's ridiculous comments appear to stand
out from nearly all the others. ...

Just so there's no confusion, "ik" and "showme" are the same person. I am
glad to see he/she/they have some company, because it was getting pretty
lonely on that side of the argument.

Jul 21 '05 #26

WTH

Chris Hohmann <no****@thankyou.com> bored us with:

"WTH" <sp*******@Ih8it.com> wrote in message
news:uE**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

showme <sh****@hotmail.com> bored us with:
WRONG, poor decision by Microsoft to put out BETA when it's really
ALPHA.

Now, beta users will spend a lot of their time fixing their computer
instead of testing the beta.

See the difference?

Now, what were you saying?

Not true. You'll notice that the OP's ridiculous comments appear to
stand out from nearly all the others. ...

Just so there's no confusion, "ik" and "showme" are the same person.
I am glad to see he/she/they have some company, because it was
getting pretty lonely on that side of the argument.

I noticed, I was just waiting for showme to say something like "ik said..."
and then eviscerate him/her.

WTH

Jul 21 '05 #27

> professional you are. Crashing and screwing up other programs on someone

else's system is OK as long as you have the beta disclaimer.

Uh, we choose to download and install beta software on our own machines.
Who made anyone else "crash and screw up" their systems?

Once again, this trash you're spewing is laughable... it's BETA, download AT
YOUR OWN RISK. Any professional knows that. If you screwed up your system,
don't point fingers at us or at Microsoft. You did it willingly.

A

Jul 21 '05 #28

> WRONG, poor decision by Microsoft to put out BETA when it's really ALPHA.

WRONG, poor decision by you to install a beta (or an "alpha") on a
production machine.

It is certainly not an alpha release. I have been running numerous builds
on several machines and have not had any problems.

Tell us, honestly, if it said "Alpha" you wouldn't have downloaded it? Give
me a break.

A

Jul 21 '05 #29

I think there is a valid point in there somewhere aside from all the horse
manure which needs to be considered. The sql server needs more work. It
wouldn't install on my system, and then it wouldn't uninstall. It took down
my vs2003 as well resulting in days of re-installing etc. I don't really
care to point fingers either, my point is that 2005 needs a bit more
tweaking.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

WRONG, poor decision by Microsoft to put out BETA when it's really ALPHA.

WRONG, poor decision by you to install a beta (or an "alpha") on a
production machine.

It is certainly not an alpha release. I have been running numerous builds
on several machines and have not had any problems.

Tell us, honestly, if it said "Alpha" you wouldn't have downloaded it?
Give me a break.

A

Jul 21 '05 #30

> manure which needs to be considered. The sql server needs more work.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

It

wouldn't install on my system, and then it wouldn't uninstall. It took
down my vs2003 as well resulting in days of re-installing etc. I don't
really care to point fingers either, my point is that 2005 needs a bit
more tweaking.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%2****************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
WRONG, poor decision by Microsoft to put out BETA when it's really
ALPHA.

WRONG, poor decision by you to install a beta (or an "alpha") on a
production machine.

It is certainly not an alpha release. I have been running numerous
builds on several machines and have not had any problems.

Tell us, honestly, if it said "Alpha" you wouldn't have downloaded it?
Give me a break.

A

Jul 21 '05 #31

> manure which needs to be considered. The sql server needs more work.

Yep, that's why it's called a beta.

It took down my vs2003 as well resulting in days of re-installing etc.

It's a beta. It should have been installed on a throw-away machine, or
partition, or within virtual pc / vmware etc. I believe there are known
issues about installing it alongside versions of .NET 1.1... but in any
case, it shouldn't have been installed where "resulting in days of
re-installing" would be an issue.

It's a beta.

It's a beta.

It's a beta.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Jul 21 '05 #32

no complaints. it's my fault. i wasn't pointing a finger.

but you have to admit that its been a while - in my estimation at least -
since a beta went south like that. I would have expected an alpha to skip
town, but i was dissappointed in the beta behavior. disappointed because a
beta is potentially a release candidate. major issues should have been
sorted out. minor issues should still need tweaking. a beta taking a dump on
a computer needs a lot more than minor work based on the release time frame
microsoft has.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:uW**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

manure which needs to be considered. The sql server needs more work.

Yep, that's why it's called a beta.
It took down my vs2003 as well resulting in days of re-installing etc.

It's a beta. It should have been installed on a throw-away machine, or
partition, or within virtual pc / vmware etc. I believe there are known
issues about installing it alongside versions of .NET 1.1... but in any
case, it shouldn't have been installed where "resulting in days of
re-installing" would be an issue.

It's a beta.

It's a beta.

It's a beta.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Jul 21 '05 #33

> but you have to admit that its been a while - in my estimation at least -

since a beta went south like that.
I, on the other hand, have had absolutely no problems, nor have my
colleagues that are beta testing. So what "went south" for you might be
more of an exception than the rule (or maybe something to do with mismatched
..NET versions I mentioned earlier, which I thought was a documented issue!).
beta is potentially a release candidate.
No, it isn't. Which is why it isn't called a release candidate. In server
products like this (Windows, SQL Server, Exchange), RCs are not labeled as
such until long after beta 3. SQL Server isn't even at beta 2 yet.

SQL Server Express was a technical preview, not a release candidate. Why
did you (or should anybody) treat this with any less scrutiny than any other
beta product? B-E-T-A. Beta, right.
major issues should have been sorted out.
A beta is designed to sort out major issues. If all the issues are already
sorted out, we'd have a final release!!! Maybe instead of complaining that
"Microsoft f***ed my system", ik and showme can get together and file an
actual bug report and help sort this issue out.
a beta taking a dump on a computer
ONCE AGAIN! *YOU* choose the computer to install a beta on! And once
again, why is this beta suddenly expected to be so much more omnipotent and
flawless than any other beta product? I think your expectations are a
little ridiculous.
needs a lot more than minor work based on the release time frame microsoft
has.

Are you sure you're aware of the release time frame??? It's a YEAR away!
So, don't install it if you're not willing to deal with product maturity
issues.

Repeat after me: it's a beta! I will not install it on a machine I rely on!
Why? Because it's a beta! It is not a final release!

I can only hope that sniveling like that in this thread does not lead to
Microsoft closing the door on programs like this, and not letting you see it
until the day it's released... for the benefit of the few people who
knowingly grab and install a beta on production machines and shoot
themselves in the foot, and do nothing but gripe about it...

Microsoft is damned if they do (aw, look what you did to my machine, big bad
M$!), damned if they don't (aw, come on M$, let me play with it!).

It's really too bad.

A

Jul 21 '05 #34

You are missing the entire point. The whole point of the thread is that this
is not the exception. rather than dismissing OP and name calling because
this was posted by you

NITWIT!!!

you should listen to the main point which is the sql edition has major
problems. These problems are show stoppers. I believe that was the giest of
OP's comments. Hiding behind beta technicality does not fix the problem that
it is an issue. if it isn't resolved, the software will miss its ship date.
how does MS know if there are major issues? they rely on the beta pool of
testers to inform them. but you are dismissive of OP which is counter
productive and it also discourages other users from installing the beta.

And yes, i did submit a bug report. And yes my computer is open to allow MS
to gather detailed information. The point of a public beta is to gather
feedback and to see what works and what needs work. i would hope that
microsoft has the sense to weed thru the feedback both positive and negative
to find the real issues plaguing the users because it is valuable. 3.5
million people tested vs02. They didn't all have secondary machines which is
why .net was the largest public beta ever from MS. Some people like me take
the chance and install it on their main machine. the beta only releases
microsoft from liability. i wasn't blaming microsoft for trashing my system.
i was saying that the beta NEEDS work. If you can't understand the
difference, i've wasted my time.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:ey**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

but you have to admit that its been a while - in my estimation at least -
since a beta went south like that.

I, on the other hand, have had absolutely no problems, nor have my
colleagues that are beta testing. So what "went south" for you might be
more of an exception than the rule (or maybe something to do with
mismatched .NET versions I mentioned earlier, which I thought was a
documented issue!).
beta is potentially a release candidate.

No, it isn't. Which is why it isn't called a release candidate. In
server products like this (Windows, SQL Server, Exchange), RCs are not
labeled as such until long after beta 3. SQL Server isn't even at beta 2
yet.

SQL Server Express was a technical preview, not a release candidate. Why
did you (or should anybody) treat this with any less scrutiny than any
other beta product? B-E-T-A. Beta, right.
major issues should have been sorted out.

A beta is designed to sort out major issues. If all the issues are
already sorted out, we'd have a final release!!! Maybe instead of
complaining that "Microsoft f***ed my system", ik and showme can get
together and file an actual bug report and help sort this issue out.
a beta taking a dump on a computer

ONCE AGAIN! *YOU* choose the computer to install a beta on! And once
again, why is this beta suddenly expected to be so much more omnipotent
and flawless than any other beta product? I think your expectations are a
little ridiculous.
needs a lot more than minor work based on the release time frame
microsoft has.

Are you sure you're aware of the release time frame??? It's a YEAR away!
So, don't install it if you're not willing to deal with product maturity
issues.

Repeat after me: it's a beta! I will not install it on a machine I rely
on! Why? Because it's a beta! It is not a final release!

I can only hope that sniveling like that in this thread does not lead to
Microsoft closing the door on programs like this, and not letting you see
it until the day it's released... for the benefit of the few people who
knowingly grab and install a beta on production machines and shoot
themselves in the foot, and do nothing but gripe about it...

Microsoft is damned if they do (aw, look what you did to my machine, big
bad M$!), damned if they don't (aw, come on M$, let me play with it!).

It's really too bad.

A

Jul 21 '05 #35

> rather than dismissing OP and name calling because

this was posted by you
NITWIT!!!

No, it was not. I suggest you review the thread again, and pay close
attention to matching the From: column to the text of the message. Please
point me to a post where I've used the word nitwit (other than this one, of
course).
you should listen to the main point which is the sql edition has major
problems.
Yes, it does. It is also a beta product, so it is *expected* to have
issues.
These problems are show stoppers.
Maybe in your case, but not for the majority. XP has show stoppers too,
again not for the majority. Should it not have been released either? With
the scope of Microsoft products, do you think it's even marginally
reasonable to expect any single server product to have 100% successful
installation success, prior to BETA 2??? Again, you're being completely
unreasonable.
how does MS know if there are major issues? they rely on the beta pool of
testers to inform them. but you are dismissive of OP which is counter
productive and it also discourages other users from installing the beta.

I dismissed the OP because he said, essentially, "Microsoft sucks because
they ruined my production machine." Had he given some actual substance in
his post, instead of acting like a grade school child stamping his feet
because he spilled beans on his knickers, I might have given a little more
attention.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Jul 21 '05 #36

apologies for misquoting you then.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

rather than dismissing OP and name calling because
this was posted by you
> NITWIT!!!

No, it was not. I suggest you review the thread again, and pay close
attention to matching the From: column to the text of the message. Please
point me to a post where I've used the word nitwit (other than this one,
of
course).
you should listen to the main point which is the sql edition has major
problems.

Yes, it does. It is also a beta product, so it is *expected* to have
issues.
These problems are show stoppers.

Maybe in your case, but not for the majority. XP has show stoppers too,
again not for the majority. Should it not have been released either?
With
the scope of Microsoft products, do you think it's even marginally
reasonable to expect any single server product to have 100% successful
installation success, prior to BETA 2??? Again, you're being completely
unreasonable.
how does MS know if there are major issues? they rely on the beta pool of
testers to inform them. but you are dismissive of OP which is counter
productive and it also discourages other users from installing the beta.

I dismissed the OP because he said, essentially, "Microsoft sucks because
they ruined my production machine." Had he given some actual substance in
his post, instead of acting like a grade school child stamping his feet
because he spilled beans on his knickers, I might have given a little more
attention.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Jul 21 '05 #37

I am not so arrogant to add "Information Architect" to my signature. That is
my job title here. As I am assuming yours is "Senior at <enter appropriate
High School name here>". I have worked my way up through the ranks fro
programmer to systems engineer to this position. I have not forgotten
everything I learned either from school or life's experience. When I
download SQL Server Yukon Beta 2 I will take care to install it on a machine
that I can restore at will without impacting other users. That is a fact of
life.

Do you program? have you ever tried to build even the simplest accounting
package? it is difficult to get what you view is right to even work on your
own equipment let alone a clients. And then there is the issue of what you
think is right and what your client thinks is right.

--
Andrew C. Madsen
Information Architect
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
"showme" <sh****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

Don't be so arrogant to add the "Information Architect" to your signature.

Whether it wasn't knowing made to harm the system doesn't give Microsoft the right to offer such crappy and dangerous code to begin with. Just because a drug is in the last testing stages of clinical trials should allow it kill
someone.

You guys think are so smart, but first look at your own crappy and
unreliable systems before the complete nonsense you spit out.

You call me not a professional, but it's OK to you that one of the last
stage clinical drug trials kills someone as long as it has a disclaimer,
"beta"
The fact you are accepting crappy software for a beta shows the type of
professional you are. Crashing and screwing up other programs on someone
else's system is OK as long as you have the beta disclaimer.

Professionals don't rely on disclaimer labels like "betas" to justify
screwups. They actually make sure it doesn't happen to begin with.

But of course, "Mr. Information Arrogant", you wanted to have some humble
pie today just like some MVP's do all the time here at this newsgroup.

So put down your "Dry Erase" markers from your Ivory Whiteboard and come
down and put your fingers to the keyboard for once and code something on
your computer that totally needs to be reformatted because it has a beta
that damages your computer like a virus does.

"Andrew Madsen" <an***********@harley-davidson.com> wrote in message
news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
So far you have not shown that the beta was designed in a knowingly

fashion
to harm your operating system or access and reveal to outside sources your
data (which is what a virus does). All you have demonstrated is that you

are
a pre-teen or teenager that found some free (to you at least) software

and,
as you did not take even the most rudimentary steps to protect an existing installation, attempted to install it without following ALL the

instructions
and therefore scragged your current installation. You also have

demonstrated
you are not a professional and if you work for anyone then I pity them for the waste of money.

--
Andrew C. Madsen
Information Architect
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
"showme" <sh****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
When does a BETA become a VIRUS?

Like if BETA breaks so many things, it might as was well be a virus then?
Looks like a VIRUS, breaks stuff like a VIRUS, it's a virus!

Giving it a "Ohhh Ahhhhh" name like BETA had better mean it's not a virus
OR
act like a virus.

Otherwise if it acts like a Virus, it should be called a Virus.

"Bradley M. Small" <BS****@XNOSPAMXmjsi.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Wow, I guess Beta means nothing to some people. I can certainly

remember > back to when there weren't such wide open Beta's and it was difficult even
> to get a Beta copy of anything much less something like SQL server.
>
> I can even remember some beta licenses that required a full disk format > before installation.
>
> It's BETA it can and may wipe out your whole system. If you can't
risk the
> system you are putting it on, then don't put it on, and wait for a

release
> version.
>
> It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in

your > pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.
>
>

Jul 21 '05 #38

Don't be so arrogant to add the "Information Architect" to your signature.

Whether it wasn't knowing made to harm the system doesn't give Microsoft the right to offer such crappy and dangerous code to begin with. Just because a drug is in the last testing stages of clinical trials should allow it kill
someone.

You guys think are so smart, but first look at your own crappy and
unreliable systems before the complete nonsense you spit out.

You call me not a professional, but it's OK to you that one of the last
stage clinical drug trials kills someone as long as it has a disclaimer,
"beta"
The fact you are accepting crappy software for a beta shows the type of
professional you are. Crashing and screwing up other programs on someone
else's system is OK as long as you have the beta disclaimer.

Professionals don't rely on disclaimer labels like "betas" to justify
screwups. They actually make sure it doesn't happen to begin with.

But of course, "Mr. Information Arrogant", you wanted to have some humble
pie today just like some MVP's do all the time here at this newsgroup.

So put down your "Dry Erase" markers from your Ivory Whiteboard and come
down and put your fingers to the keyboard for once and code something on
your computer that totally needs to be reformatted because it has a beta
that damages your computer like a virus does.

"Andrew Madsen" <an***********@harley-davidson.com> wrote in message
news:e4*************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
So far you have not shown that the beta was designed in a knowingly

fashion
to harm your operating system or access and reveal to outside sources your
data (which is what a virus does). All you have demonstrated is that you

are
a pre-teen or teenager that found some free (to you at least) software

and,
as you did not take even the most rudimentary steps to protect an existing installation, attempted to install it without following ALL the

instructions
and therefore scragged your current installation. You also have

demonstrated
you are not a professional and if you work for anyone then I pity them for the waste of money.

--
Andrew C. Madsen
Information Architect
Harley-Davidson Motor Company
"showme" <sh****@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:er*************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
When does a BETA become a VIRUS?

Like if BETA breaks so many things, it might as was well be a virus then?
Looks like a VIRUS, breaks stuff like a VIRUS, it's a virus!

Giving it a "Ohhh Ahhhhh" name like BETA had better mean it's not a virus
OR
act like a virus.

Otherwise if it acts like a Virus, it should be called a Virus.

"Bradley M. Small" <BS****@XNOSPAMXmjsi.com> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Wow, I guess Beta means nothing to some people. I can certainly

remember > back to when there weren't such wide open Beta's and it was difficult even
> to get a Beta copy of anything much less something like SQL server.
>
> I can even remember some beta licenses that required a full disk format > before installation.
>
> It's BETA it can and may wipe out your whole system. If you can't
risk the
> system you are putting it on, then don't put it on, and wait for a

release
> version.
>
> It is just like gambling, if you can't afford to lose the $100 in

your > pocket, then keep it there and don't bet it on roulette.
>
>

Jul 21 '05 #39

> As I am assuming yours is "Senior at <enter appropriate

High School name here>".

Far too much credit and respect. I would have guessed freshman at high
school or senior at middle school.

A

Jul 21 '05 #40

> As I am assuming yours is "Senior at <enter appropriate

High School name here>".

Far too much credit and respect. I would have guessed freshman at high
school or senior at middle school.

A

Jul 21 '05 #41

tehehe,
i see this conversation has deteriorated to the gutters...

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

Jul 21 '05 #42

Jul 21 '05 #43

> i see this conversation has deteriorated to the gutters...

Well, that's where it started.

Jul 21 '05 #44

> i see this conversation has deteriorated to the gutters...

Well, that's where it started.

Jul 21 '05 #45

Sorry,

Before I became a programmer I was first a farm boy then a mechanic. None of
which ever afforded stupid people much slack. Then I became educated so I
could slap them around with more syllables. Now that I use my "Ivory
Whiteboard" more than my programming skills my bitter bite gets directed
toward the truly ignorant. And by ignorant I mean people that are so lazy
that they ignore common safety procedures and then want to sue the
manufacturer for being injured as in the OP's case.

Again I beg forgiveness as I am old and cranky.

--
Andrew C. Madsen
Information Architect
Harley-Davidson Motor Company

"Alvin Bruney [MVP]" <vapor at steaming post office> wrote in message
news:e$**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

tehehe,
i see this conversation has deteriorated to the gutters...

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok

Jul 21 '05 #46