Executive Summary:

SQL Server Magazine readers produced an outpouring of comments in response to Michael Otey’s and Brian Moran’s columns about the upcoming release of Microsoft SQL Server 2008. Overwhelmingly, readers said they weren’t ready for an upgrade coming so soon after the release of Microsoft SQL Server 2005, and would either stay on SQL Server 2005 indefinitely or avoid an interim upgrade to SQL Server 2005 and go straight from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2008.

In their recent commentaries about the impending release of SQL Server 2008, Michael Otey and Brian Moran homed in on what's clearly a hot button for SQL Server pros. (See "Too Soon for SQL Server 2008?" August 2007, InstantDoc ID 96028 and "Leapfrogging to Katmai," June 2007, http://www.sqlmag.com/Article/ArticleID/96348/sql_ server_96348.html.) Readers responded to Michael and Brian's columns by voicing their concerns about Microsoft's 2008 "technology refresh" release coming on the heels of a major upgrade. Most of the responses fell into one of two categories: either "2008? We're still getting used to 2005!" or "We'll probably just skip the 2005 upgrade and go straight to 2008." Here's a sampling of feedback from both online comments and email. "I agree with your editorial; every developer and architect I know is still coming to terms with the nuances of SQL Server 2005; 2008 is too tight of a turn."
Austin Zellner

"Not to sound naive, but the new major versionrelease schedule Microsoft has started is more about money than support. Yes, they are a company and are supposed to make money. But this new release is too soon for many of the larger customers. The changes to the BI area of SQL Server have many still learning and adjusting.... Adoption of tools takes time and resources to accomplish. Backward compatibility has always been an issue for Microsoft, \[and\] I have to wonder what problems will occur if people skip a release - which I can see becoming more common."
Ric Williams

"My opinion and that of other SQL Server users and DBAs that I've talked to is that we're all just now starting to move in the direction of SQL Server 2005, either due to budget reasons or waiting for software vendors to certify their software on SQL Server 2005. Now we get word that in six months, Microsoft is coming out with the next version? We're wondering what the purpose of doing anything in SQL Server 2005 is, and we're thinking of just waiting for next year to try and adopt SQL Server 2008. But that is only if our software vendors certify it for compatibility... It's a vicious cycle; it seems that now that Microsoft has adopted this new release schedule, we're always going to be at least one, if not two, versions behind."
Greg Sopczak

"We have only one SQL 2005 install here. The rest (20 production servers) are on SQL Server 2000... about half on Windows 2000. We are in a budget crunch, so we cannot come up with the $250,000 or so to upgrade. At this point, we will probably be doing the calendar year 2009-10 jump from SQL Server 2000 to 2008."
Markus_SQL

"It's too soon. We have just kicked off our upgrade of SQL Server 2000 to 2005, having about 30 servers. This will take at least a year due to dependencies between different applications and having to upgrade all our third-party software to the version \[that's\] supported on SQL 2005... The benefits of upgrading to 2005 in our environment are minimal as 2000 is very stable, so the main driver is the end of support for 2000."
pranil

"We had done a lot of work in preparation for upgrading from 2000 to 2005 and were just getting ready to start, when we heard the announcement about 2008. Now we'll be leapfrogging 2005 and waiting for 2008. For us the major issues are DTS to SQL Server Integration Services (SSIS) migration, user testing, and upgrading the skills of our development staff."
ragresti