Installing SQL Virtual Machine

[juststarting]

1. Is the windows virtual machine on the network? Then just connect to it from client components on an external machine.

2. Try installing client tools before installing SQL Server

3. Try a copy of the binn folder - might work

4. Have you got another virtual machine with SQL already installed on it? If so copy an image across to the new server (dirty but might do it).

5. Get on your knees and apologise to the server for mentioning google. And accept that it is your role in life is to test for Microsoft. Thought crime is a crime you know, and can be detected by SQL Server 2005.

I have always thought Microsoft will be company that will take over the internet and then the Earth and then the space. Now , Goggle is much more likely to take this position. Microsoft is done business. We all know it. And we rather have someone else. Apparently few companies survive over the long term ( Coca - Cola ) . Or maybe 30 years in IT is like 300 years in other businesses.

I am no employee of Google , but they are the good guy now. We turn to them when we need help. They give us those new apps. Hell yeah , gmail is 10 times better than all the rest email apps out there.

Microsoft is doomed over the long term. Sorry Steve.

 

[AtW]

Microsoft is doomed over the long term.

 

[London75]

Sorry to be a Microsoft defender but are you qualified for this installation as it sounds like you're learning as you go along in which case, of course the posts made by others on the web will help you.

I'd like to stress, all Google did was find the expert advice made by clever people and qualified professionals and present it to you. They didn't answer one single question you had. DBAs and Windows Server Admins probably did.

Let's not give Google all the credit hey?

 

[juststarting]

Sorry to be a Microsoft defender but are you qualified for this installation as it sounds like you're learning as you go along in which case, of course the posts made by others on the web will help you.

I'd like to stress, all Google did was find the expert advice made by clever people and qualified professionals and present it to you. They didn't answer one single question you had. DBAs and Windows Server Admins probably did.

Let's not give Google all the credit hey?

When was the last time you troubleshot something and did not consult google ? Yeah I don't remember either.

 

[London75]

When was the last time you troubleshot something and did not consult google ? Yeah I don't remember either.

True but SQL Server (in fact any database as Oracle in a virtual HP UNIX partition is a tulip as well) in a VM is almost a profession in itself as there are numerous design considerations, performance optimisations and options to tweak the install. If you were on a search engine that much it just sounds like something was fundamentally wrong with the approach.

My beef was more that Google is just a search engine. The answers come from millions of experts worldwide who probably aren't paid for the advice and just do it for the love of geekery.

 

[juststarting]

True but SQL Server (in fact any database as Oracle in a virtual HP UNIX partition is a tulip as well) in a VM is almost a profession in itself as there are numerous design considerations, performance optimisations and options to tweak the install. If you were on a search engine that much it just soudns like something was fundamentally wrong with the approach.

My beef was more that Google is just a search engine. The answers come from millions of experts worldwide who probably aren't paid for the advice and just do it for the love of geekery.

It is all cool.

Microsoft servers have been my wife for the last 8 years. I guess I got sick of her .

 

[NickFitz]

I have always thought Microsoft will be company that will take over the internet and then the Earth and then the space. Now , Goggle is much more likely to take this position. Microsoft is done business. We all know it. And we rather have someone else. Apparently few companies survive over the long term ( Coca - Cola ) . Or maybe 30 years in IT is like 300 years in other businesses.

I am no employee of Google , but they are the good guy now. We turn to them when we need help. They give us those new apps. Hell yeah , gmail is 10 times better than all the rest email apps out there.

Microsoft is doomed over the long term. Sorry Steve.

Microsoft's problem is that it has never really "got" the Internet, and rather than adapting its business model in the face of it, it tried to coerce the Internet into fitting into Microsoft's business model. For an example of this thinking, see this email from Bill Gates in December 1996 (PDF):

One thing we have got to change in our strategy — allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.

We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.​

Given competition from a set of technologies built around open standards, Microsoft attempted to enforce proprietary lock-in. They failed. (This also explains why Office produces such appallingly malformed HTML - it's deliberate.)

Not so long ago there was another company that was the biggest computer company in the world, but had failed to realise that it had to adapt in the face of a new, disruptive technology - a technology that completely changed the way its world worked.

That company was IBM. In 1982 it was Big Blue, and people would have laughed at you if you had suggested it might ever lose its pre-eminence. Ten years later it was reporting a loss on the year of over $10 billion, and it seemed very likely that it would go to the wall. IBM was only saved by Lou Gerstner's drastic action in completely reversing the company's strategy, switching its direction from being predominantly a systems manufacturer to being a service provider.

There are some signs that Microsoft is finally realising that it needs to change drastically if it is to continue to succeed in the future. However, the current tinkering around by senior management isn't enough: Microsoft needs fundamental change. The fact is that Microsoft could survive on its cash reserves for at least ten years without a single successful product; but it can't survive forever without adapting, any more than IBM could have done.

One sometimes hears people say "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft." Twenty-five years ago, the saying was "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." That's something worth considering if you believe Microsoft will always be there.

 

[KentPhilip]

Microsoft's problem is that it has never really "got" the Internet, and rather than adapting its business model in the face of it, it tried to coerce the Internet into fitting into Microsoft's business model. For an example of this thinking, see this email from Bill Gates in December 1996 (PDF):

One thing we have got to change in our strategy — allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company.

We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.​

Given competition from a set of technologies built around open standards, Microsoft attempted to enforce proprietary lock-in. They failed. (This also explains why Office produces such appallingly malformed HTML - it's deliberate.)

Not so long ago there was another company that was the biggest computer company in the world, but had failed to realise that it had to adapt in the face of a new, disruptive technology - a technology that completely changed the way its world worked.

That company was IBM. In 1982 it was Big Blue, and people would have laughed at you if you had suggested it might ever lose its pre-eminence. Ten years later it was reporting a loss on the year of over $10 billion, and it seemed very likely that it would go to the wall. IBM was only saved by Lou Gerstner's drastic action in completely reversing the company's strategy, switching its direction from being predominantly a systems manufacturer to being a service provider.

There are some signs that Microsoft is finally realising that it needs to change drastically if it is to continue to succeed in the future. However, the current tinkering around by senior management isn't enough: Microsoft needs fundamental change. The fact is that Microsoft could survive on its cash reserves for at least ten years without a single successful product; but it can't survive forever without adapting, any more than IBM could have done.

One sometimes hears people say "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft." Twenty-five years ago, the saying was "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." That's something worth considering if you believe Microsoft will always be there.

exactly