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

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.

Viruses seem come in many forms here.

> 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.**--****.com/ 
(Reverse address to reply.)

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-{*filter*} or {*filter*}ager 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




OR



even
the
release

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

Your poor decision


Your ignorance



Your poor decision


Your remarkable ignorance

    WTH

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?

showme < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > bored us with:


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

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.

Chris Hohmann < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > bored us with:






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

    WTH

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

Uh, we choose to download and install beta software on our own machines. 
Who made anyone else "crash and{*filter*}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 

> 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 

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://www.**--****.com/ ]
Got tidbits? Get it here...  http://www.**--****.com/ 

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

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



It

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

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


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.**--****.com/ 
(Reverse address to reply.)