SQL server05 VS SQL server08

tribe_menx

Need ur help in this am booked to write the 070 - 431 mid august now wondering if not a beter idea to write exam for sql 2008 ....Any one written 2008 before ?

grunjhed

This is exactly the dilemma I am in. Do I do 2005 and then upgrade to 2008 or just go straight to 2008? My answer to this was it's good to be certified on the technology that you have experience with, and I work with DBs both on 2005 and 2008, so that is what I am aiming to get certified on, both!

Ashenwelt

As an odd comment. SQL 2005 70-431 is an add on cert for a lot of other certifications that MS offers, such as many of their Dynamics programs. As such, starting with 2005 makes a lot of sense, because if you need to expand on this later... you have a foundation from which to build.

brad-

2005 and 2008 are very similar. 08 offers a few new technologies, but i really cant see the exams being that different.

IMHO, it really doesnt matter. I would go with the one you use most - if it doesnt matter to the employer. If you're thinking more in terms of what it could do for the resume, then 08.

RobertKaucher

Which will you guys be using? If you will be implementing 2008 from the start, go with that. If you will be working with 2005, go with that. 2005 is going to be around for a long, long time. So don't feel like it will not be of use, because it will.

grunjhed

Dont want to hijack this thread but also no need to start a duplicate thread so will try to keep my comments general and generic so can be useful to all people.

@Ashenwelt - Thats a very valid point and a reason why i got the 70-401, as it is technology that I use at work and also an elective for the MCSE, something I am aiming to get after MCITP. So kinda lends itself to your point.

@brad - But surely if you have experience with 2005 and 2008 then surely getting both would look better on the resume? You can always upgrade from 2005 to 2008, but not get 2008 and downgrade to 2005?

@RobertKaucher - I use both, 2005 mostly but my role is support more than deployment for databases.

Good feedback so far. Thanks for all your input.

@tribe_menx - If you've studied 70-431 then why would you not want to go out and get that cert as most of the hard work is done. Why dont you at least get that and then if need be get the 2008. As Ashenwelt said, it is a part of lots of other certs and can be encorporated into them?

brad-

grunjhed wrote: »

@brad - But surely if you have experience with 2005 and 2008 then surely getting both would look better on the resume? You can always upgrade from 2005 to 2008, but not get 2008 and downgrade to 2005?

Yes, but the first exam for both, implementation and maintenance or whatever it is...the principles are the same, and the interface is nearly identical. Its not like they're 2 different skills - minus a few new technologies that probably wont be used.

Dont think of it as an upgrade or downgrade. They're very similar products. As Robert said, 2005 is going to be around for a long time.

In all honesty, i cant believe they've released 2 Database technologies so close to each other. Its really just a $$ thing imho. SQL 7 or whatever it was to 2000 was a big upgrade. 2000 to 2005 was a good upgrade. 2005 to 2008 is almost stupid if you ask me. They're trying to eat into the Oracle client base....well dont half ass it - do it all the way the first time.

tribe_menx

Many thanks will continue with 070-431 , by the look of things the developers in our company wont be upgrading anytime soon

RobertKaucher

brad- wrote: »

In all honesty, i cant believe they've released 2 Database technologies so close to each other. Its really just a $$ thing imho. SQL 7 or whatever it was to 2000 was a big upgrade. 2000 to 2005 was a good upgrade. 2005 to 2008 is almost stupid if you ask me. They're trying to eat into the Oracle client base....well dont half ass it - do it all the way the first time.

I disagree with this. There were some important changes that MS made that they needed to get out as soon as possible so as not to lose more market share to Oracle.

The things I am thinking of are the better use of XML, optimization of MERGE, and the new enhancements for spatial datamodeling. These were important new features and then if you add in the new stuff for LINQ, ADO.Net enhancements, reporting enhancements and support for PowerShell and there were lots of good reasons for a new release.

But I think your point is there isn't much in that list that would make a company that is happy with SQL Server 2005 want to run out and upgrade. I mean no admin is going to want to migrate to 2008 just to add support for PowerShell, right? But if I am looking at a new investment and it's between SQL Server and another vendor, some of those things might sway my opinion. Especially if I am a larger enterprise, where I think SQL Server has historically not made as much headway.

I guess my point is that I see the release as justified and I don't see it as having been rushed or half-assed.

grunjhed

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I mean no admin is going to want to migrate to 2008 just to add support for PowerShell, right?

Then you clearly havent seen the power of powershell

In all seriousness, if you use powershell at half of its capabilities and then implement SCCM you could potentially halve your deployment staff, and implement SCOM properly and you could easily halve your support staff with automated deployments, monitoring and troubleshooting. But this is a discussion for another topic

elover_jm

tribe_menx wrote: »

Need ur help in this am booked to write the 070 - 431 mid august now wondering if not a beter idea to write exam for sql 2008 ....Any one written 2008 before ?

If you have a lot of experience using SQL server 2005 then go with 2008, if not, start with 2005 then upgrade to 2008. installation and setup of 2008 is different from 2005 especially in a high availability and reporting environment. Also majority of the market are stil using 2005.

i'm currently managing over 100 instances of SQL server and non of them 2008 yet.

brad-

RobertKaucher wrote: »

The things I am thinking of are the better use of XML, optimization of MERGE, and the new enhancements for spatial datamodeling. These were important new features and then if you add in the new stuff for LINQ, ADO.Net enhancements, reporting enhancements and support for PowerShell and there were lots of good reasons for a new release.

I have that opinion because for what we use Informix and SQL for, those additions are irrelevant.

I'm probably overly negative towards it, i'll admit that.

RobertKaucher

grunjhed wrote: »

Then you clearly havent seen the power of powershell

In all seriousness, if you use powershell at half of its capabilities and then implement SCCM you could potentially halve your deployment staff, and implement SCOM properly and you could easily halve your support staff with automated deployments, monitoring and troubleshooting. But this is a discussion for another topic

I had no idea that the integration in 2008 was so tight. That's really amazing. So I have to admit I have not seen the Power in SQL Server.