Any Real Evidence That 7.0 Is Better Than 6.5?

[PoliticallyIncorrect]

There seems to be a lot of general statements made about improvements in 7.0 over 6.5, particularly related to reliability and data corruption issues. Nevertheless, I am having difficulty finding anything written by Microsoft or anyone else that gives the hard facts in order to cost justify upgrading.

Does anyone know of any written information that compares 6.5 side-by-side, feature-for-feature, bug-for-fix to 7.0?

 

[tlbroadbent]

If you're into old news here are some articles comparing 6.5 and 7.0.

http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,408776,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,373090,00.html

http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=6118

--------------------------------

You're not going to find much current info on SQL 7.0 now that SQL 2000 has been out more than a year. You can't even buy SQL 7 from Microsoft.

Check this MS page for links to SQL Server performance information.

http://www.microsoft.com/SQL/evaluation/compare/performance.asp

--------------------------------

I've been doing SQL Server since version 4.2a. We are now preparing to upgrade to SQL 2000. Each version has become more stable and more reliable. We are handling much larger amount of data, greater number of users and many more transactions with ease. Terry Broadbent

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J Boorstin

 

[foxdev]

From a "real life" perspective, here are three that come to mind:

* better tools (EM, etc.)
* 8K page size (hence, bigger rows possible)
* row-level locking
Robert Bradley

http://www.agrainofhope.org

http://www.lowcostprints.com

http://www.foxdev.com