THE SQL Server Blog Spot on the Web

Welcome to SQLblog.com - The SQL Server blog spot on the web Sign in | |
in Search

Tibor Karaszi

Analogy between SQL Server and operating systems

With SQL Server 2008 released, I was thinking back of earlier versions of SQL Server. And I decided to compare them to the MS operating systems. Not a point-in-time comparsion, like "SQL Server version x was released year a, which was the same year that OS y was released.". I'm thinking more of the feel you have for the product. Why would anyone want to do that? I don't know - for fun, perhaps? While writing below I realized that the comparsions/analogies worked better the older the product is. Perhaps a product need to be obsolete for us to have the sentimental feeling required for this type of comparsion? Anyhow, here goes:

SQL Server 1.x <-> DOS
(I do know it ran on OS/2, but again this is more about how you feel for the product.)
I know, perhaps not all fair, but think about it. We are talking about command-line environments, or at the best some full-screen character based applications (like edit.exe or saf.exe). And installation was floppy based where the product did fit on a couple of floppies.

SQL Server 4.x <-> OS/2 or Windows pre-95
I can't decide here.
OS/2 had the merit that it wasn't a bad OS, but almost no apps were developed for it (think back to version 1.2 and 1.3 and what it was at the time - and what it could have been), and it wasn't a fun environment to work in. Windows pre-95 had the merit of being a GUI which, sort of, brought multitasking to the desktop - but what about robustness?
Same goes for SQL server 4.x. It was revolutionary in some sense, like: Imagine fitting a real RDBMS in a PC? Now smaller businesses can start using "real" RDBMSs. But OTOH, it was very unpolished. Remember the GUI tools? They were really Windows apps where some conversion tool converted them for OS/2.
So, I think it is a draw between OS/2 and Windows pre-95.

SQL Server 6.x <-> Windows NT 3.x or Windows 9x
Again, I can't decide.
In one way, SQL Server 6.x was MS first "own" release. But OTOH, the Sybase code base was still there. MS mainly did tool stuff, along with some engine stuff (like ANSI SQL compliance). But it wasn't a re-write of the engine.
This can compare to Windows 9x - the DOS heritage was still there, in some sense.
If you compare SQL Server 6.x to Windows NT 3.x you can also see similarities. NT 3.x was the first versions of the new revolutionary OS from MS. But it still looked like ... old Windows - something you might compare with SQL Server 6.x enterprise Manager.

SQL Server 7.0 <-> NT 4
I was originally going to put Windows 2000 here, but after thinking a while, I decide for NT 4.
7.0 was the first version of the new architecture. A lot happened, where the engine was all re-written. New stuff was introduced (Profiler, DTS, Olap server). So, at the engine level, we basically got a more modern look-and-feel.
To some extent NT 4 was similar. You got a new GUI (adopted from Windows 9x). The revolution was that you now had an *stable* OS which you also could run as your desktop OS. I bet that many of you (computer nerds)/readers preferred NT 4 instead of Windows 9x at that time. I did. There were some architectural news in the OS as well, like the device driver model (some stuff were moved to kernel mode - if my memory serves me).

SQL Server 2000 <-> Windows 2000
Seems too easy, but think about it.
SQL Server 2000 was when the new architecture matured. IMO, a great release at that time. OK, some would argue that it didn't happened that much between 7.0 and 2000, but maturing and polish of the new architecture is a major thing to me.
Windows 2000 can also be seen as becoming mature - ready to be used in masses. OK, there were some revolutionary new stuff like AD, but you can't expect the analogy to fit 100%. ;-)

SQL Server 2005 <-> Vista
Hmm, is my analogy breaking down here?
I was originally going to put Windows 2003 here. But that was a bit too much going chronologically hand-in-hand.
And I think that XP is a bit unfair (perhaps XP would be a better fit for SQL Server 2000?).
But 2005 did have lots and lots of changes and new features. And so did Vista. Vista has a rather slow adaption rate, and I have the same feeling for SQL Server 2005. Many people seems to wait for Vista+, a perhaps more cleaned-up OS? And some seem to be waiting for SQL Server 2008, even though perhaps not for the same reasons.

SQL Server 2008 <-> Vista +
This was unavoidable, considering how we got here. I won't dwell into this, since it is too early to say how we feel about these releases in 10 years from now... 

Now why on earth did I write this post? Well, I have been doing some 6 full installations and some 12 database engine installations of SQL Server 2008 the last two days - so I've had a lot of time on my hands. :-)

 

Published Friday, August 08, 2008 11:25 AM by TiborKaraszi
Filed under: ,

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

 

Michael Swart said:

I would have said that SQL 2000 had the same feel as Windows 95. Windows 95 was when the OS really came into its own. There was a lot of fanfare. I don't know if there's ever been fanfare for sql server. But SQL Server 2000 introduced a lot of things that made life easier.

In both SQL2000 and Windows 95, for the first time, you could really use the computer well as it was designed.

August 8, 2008 8:24 AM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
Submit
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems
  Privacy Statement