Cheapest Solution.

We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
solution? The only computer which needs to access the
server is that running it.I am the IS Manager for a non-profit also. We were in the same boat, and the
way I got through this was to go to a site called http://www.techsoup.com.
At this site you can register your agency using your 501c3 and Charitable
Status number, then you can purchase software, including MS items, for VERY
cheap rates. I got SBS2k, 45 licenses, and Visio for $98.00. Only catch is
that you can only do it once every 2 years, so have a good plan of what you
need when you do it. Let me know if I can be of any help. Been in the NP
world for awhile and it does offer challenges.
"Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> server is that running it.|||The cheapest option is to purchase Enterprise Edition using the Server + CAL
model with very few CALs.
I don't know why you consider the 2GB limit "silly". It cost Microsoft
millions of dollars to develop, test, tune, and support the wierd mechanisms
for getting around the x86 architectural limitations that lead to a 2GB user
virtual address space. It makes sense for them to charge for all the extra
work that benefits only a modest portion of the installed base. Its true
that in a few more years, as Itanium and/or AMD-64 dominate the server
space, that the 2GB limit will become arbitrary. And at that point it will
also make sense for Microsoft to change its packaging/licensing.
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> server is that running it.|||Why, specifically, do you need to surpass to 2GB limitiation, are your
queries running out of memory?
<op ed>
"> ...cost them millions of dollars to develop something that makes them
> Billions of dollars. Hmmmm...."
sounds like someone coming from the public sector.
</op ed>
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"John C. Harris, MPA" <harris1214@.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ez2YRidXDHA.2360@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sounds like someone is paid by Microsoft
> ...cost them millions of dollars to develop something that makes them
> Billions of dollars. Hmmmm....
>
> "Hal Berenson" <haroldb@.truemountainconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:%23lzu2RdXDHA.652@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The cheapest option is to purchase Enterprise Edition using the Server +
> CAL
> > model with very few CALs.
> >
> > I don't know why you consider the 2GB limit "silly". It cost Microsoft
> > millions of dollars to develop, test, tune, and support the wierd
> mechanisms
> > for getting around the x86 architectural limitations that lead to a 2GB
> user
> > virtual address space. It makes sense for them to charge for all the
> extra
> > work that benefits only a modest portion of the installed base. Its
true
> > that in a few more years, as Itanium and/or AMD-64 dominate the server
> > space, that the 2GB limit will become arbitrary. And at that point it
> will
> > also make sense for Microsoft to change its packaging/licensing.
> >
> > --
> > Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> > True Mountain Group LLC
> >
> >
> > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > server is that running it.
> >
> >
>|||Brian
When I read this, I thought the 2GB limit you were referring to was the
database size restriction imposed by MSDE, but other people's posts seemed
to imply that you were talking about the 2GB memory limitation imposed in
all editions except for SQL Server Enterprise Edition running on Windows
2000.
Can you clarify which 'silly 2GB limit' you are concerned about?
Thanks
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> server is that running it.|||Could you tell Kevin? LOL
"Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
news:%23gLLmkdXDHA.208@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Why, specifically, do you need to surpass to 2GB limitiation, are your
> queries running out of memory?
> <op ed>
> "> ...cost them millions of dollars to develop something that makes them
> > Billions of dollars. Hmmmm...."
> sounds like someone coming from the public sector.
> </op ed>
>
> --
> Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> ----
> The views expressed here are my own
> and not of my employer.
> ----
> "John C. Harris, MPA" <harris1214@.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ez2YRidXDHA.2360@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Sounds like someone is paid by Microsoft
> >
> > ...cost them millions of dollars to develop something that makes them
> > Billions of dollars. Hmmmm....
> >
> >
> > "Hal Berenson" <haroldb@.truemountainconsulting.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23lzu2RdXDHA.652@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > The cheapest option is to purchase Enterprise Edition using the Server
+
> > CAL
> > > model with very few CALs.
> > >
> > > I don't know why you consider the 2GB limit "silly". It cost
Microsoft
> > > millions of dollars to develop, test, tune, and support the wierd
> > mechanisms
> > > for getting around the x86 architectural limitations that lead to a
2GB
> > user
> > > virtual address space. It makes sense for them to charge for all the
> > extra
> > > work that benefits only a modest portion of the installed base. Its
> true
> > > that in a few more years, as Itanium and/or AMD-64 dominate the server
> > > space, that the 2GB limit will become arbitrary. And at that point it
> > will
> > > also make sense for Microsoft to change its packaging/licensing.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> > > True Mountain Group LLC
> > >
> > >
> > > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > > server is that running it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||If you actually saw how many resources they staff to develop and maintain
the sql server product line you would understand that it costs them far more
than a few million dollars to get you this product. And at this point in
time I doubt if sql server is even turning a profit but I could be wrong.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"John C. Harris, MPA" <harris1214@.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ez2YRidXDHA.2360@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sounds like someone is paid by Microsoft
> ...cost them millions of dollars to develop something that makes them
> Billions of dollars. Hmmmm....
>
> "Hal Berenson" <haroldb@.truemountainconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:%23lzu2RdXDHA.652@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The cheapest option is to purchase Enterprise Edition using the Server +
> CAL
> > model with very few CALs.
> >
> > I don't know why you consider the 2GB limit "silly". It cost Microsoft
> > millions of dollars to develop, test, tune, and support the wierd
> mechanisms
> > for getting around the x86 architectural limitations that lead to a 2GB
> user
> > virtual address space. It makes sense for them to charge for all the
> extra
> > work that benefits only a modest portion of the installed base. Its
true
> > that in a few more years, as Itanium and/or AMD-64 dominate the server
> > space, that the 2GB limit will become arbitrary. And at that point it
> will
> > also make sense for Microsoft to change its packaging/licensing.
> >
> > --
> > Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> > True Mountain Group LLC
> >
> >
> > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > server is that running it.
> >
> >
>|||hal started it
;)
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:eQ$790dXDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Brian
> When I read this, I thought the 2GB limit you were referring to was the
> database size restriction imposed by MSDE, but other people's posts seemed
> to imply that you were talking about the 2GB memory limitation imposed in
> all editions except for SQL Server Enterprise Edition running on Windows
> 2000.
> Can you clarify which 'silly 2GB limit' you are concerned about?
> Thanks
> --
> HTH
> --
> Kalen Delaney
> SQL Server MVP
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
> "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > server is that running it.
>|||Started what? We still don't know what the original poster was asking about.
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
news:#M15BfeXDHA.1640@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> hal started it
> ;)
>
> --
> Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> ----
> The views expressed here are my own
> and not of my employer.
> ----
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:eQ$790dXDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Brian
> >
> > When I read this, I thought the 2GB limit you were referring to was the
> > database size restriction imposed by MSDE, but other people's posts
seemed
> > to imply that you were talking about the 2GB memory limitation imposed
in
> > all editions except for SQL Server Enterprise Edition running on Windows
> > 2000.
> >
> > Can you clarify which 'silly 2GB limit' you are concerned about?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > HTH
> > --
> > Kalen Delaney
> > SQL Server MVP
> > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> >
> >
> > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > server is that running it.
> >
> >
>|||started us on the tangent regarding memory instead of database size :)
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:OwS5OjeXDHA.2384@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Started what? We still don't know what the original poster was asking
about.
> --
> HTH
> --
> Kalen Delaney
> SQL Server MVP
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
> "Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
> news:#M15BfeXDHA.1640@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > hal started it
> >
> > ;)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> > ----
> > The views expressed here are my own
> > and not of my employer.
> > ----
> > "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> > news:eQ$790dXDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > When I read this, I thought the 2GB limit you were referring to was
the
> > > database size restriction imposed by MSDE, but other people's posts
> seemed
> > > to imply that you were talking about the 2GB memory limitation imposed
> in
> > > all editions except for SQL Server Enterprise Edition running on
Windows
> > > 2000.
> > >
> > > Can you clarify which 'silly 2GB limit' you are concerned about?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > --
> > > HTH
> > > --
> > > Kalen Delaney
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > > server is that running it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Although I was once employed by Microsoft (and don't try to hide it...Google
searches reveal all) I am neither a current Microsoft employee nor should
anything I say be taken as representing Microsoft in any way.
The SQL Server product may make a billion dollars a year, but that's not the
question. The question is, how much incremental revenue does the millions
of dollars spent on this one feature generate?
I know your thought is a common one for people, but what Microsoft is doing
here is just good common business sense. Increased investment in any
product has to be justified by a return on that investment (ie, greater
revenue of sufficient size to generate greater profit). To generate the
revenue you either increase unit sales (volume), or you increase the value
you are offering and charge accordingly. One solution would be to only
invest your development resources on projects that you expect to generate
increased unit volume. In that case, features such as AWE support, failover
clusters, materialized views, support for more than 4 processors, etc. just
would never have been done. The resources would instead have been assigned
to things like adding VB stored procedures, more Access compatibility,
smaller footprint for downloads, etc. All good things, by the way. You
could invest in the features that don't offer a unit volume increase, put
them in the base product, and then raise the price for the base product.
But that penalizes all the people who don't need the additional features,
which means it penalizes most people, and could actually lower unit volume
resulting in an overall reduction in revenue. The third solution is to
create a premium product that is designed so that those who need the low
volume features are the ones who pay for them. Microsoft went with solution
#3. I guess there is a fourth solution, which is to increase the investment
but not increase revenue accordingly. This is called the "going out of
business" option. Many companies, particularly database companies, have
successfully executed on option #4.
The features in Enterprise Edition are generally those which are extremely
expensive to develop yet lead to a negligable increase in unit sales. This
is the case because those features primarily apply to low-volume
environments like high-end servers purchased, installed and maintained by
Enterprise IT organizations. Occasionally someone wants just one of the
features and doesn't really need the rest of Enterprise Edition, and then
the packaging doesn't seem to make sense. Well, for them I guess it
doesn't. No solution is going to make everyone happy. Any business tries
to maximize the applicability of their offerings to customers without
letting their costs get out of control. I hope that Microsoft has done this
with SQL Server, though certainly its packaging is not perfect for everyone.
One other interesting point. At the time that Microsoft made >2GB an
Enterprise Edition feature 1GB of memory was going for $100K or more and
thus clearly 3GB was a very low volume situation. Today 1GB goes for a few
hundred dollars and 3GB servers are mainstream. Hopefully Microsoft will
take this into account the next time it changes SQL Server packaging.
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"John C. Harris, MPA" <harris1214@.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ez2YRidXDHA.2360@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sounds like someone is paid by Microsoft
> ...cost them millions of dollars to develop something that makes them
> Billions of dollars. Hmmmm....
>
> "Hal Berenson" <haroldb@.truemountainconsulting.com> wrote in message
> news:%23lzu2RdXDHA.652@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > The cheapest option is to purchase Enterprise Edition using the Server +
> CAL
> > model with very few CALs.
> >
> > I don't know why you consider the 2GB limit "silly". It cost Microsoft
> > millions of dollars to develop, test, tune, and support the wierd
> mechanisms
> > for getting around the x86 architectural limitations that lead to a 2GB
> user
> > virtual address space. It makes sense for them to charge for all the
> extra
> > work that benefits only a modest portion of the installed base. Its
true
> > that in a few more years, as Itanium and/or AMD-64 dominate the server
> > space, that the 2GB limit will become arbitrary. And at that point it
> will
> > also make sense for Microsoft to change its packaging/licensing.
> >
> > --
> > Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> > True Mountain Group LLC
> >
> >
> > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > server is that running it.
> >
> >
>|||But are we sure that is a tangent?
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
news:uhfZwpeXDHA.2568@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> started us on the tangent regarding memory instead of database size :)
>
> --
> Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> ----
> The views expressed here are my own
> and not of my employer.
> ----
> "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> news:OwS5OjeXDHA.2384@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Started what? We still don't know what the original poster was asking
> about.
> >
> > --
> > HTH
> > --
> > Kalen Delaney
> > SQL Server MVP
> > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> >
> >
> > "Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
> > news:#M15BfeXDHA.1640@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > hal started it
> > >
> > > ;)
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> > > ----
> > > The views expressed here are my own
> > > and not of my employer.
> > > ----
> > > "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eQ$790dXDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > > When I read this, I thought the 2GB limit you were referring to was
> the
> > > > database size restriction imposed by MSDE, but other people's posts
> > seemed
> > > > to imply that you were talking about the 2GB memory limitation
imposed
> > in
> > > > all editions except for SQL Server Enterprise Edition running on
> Windows
> > > > 2000.
> > > >
> > > > Can you clarify which 'silly 2GB limit' you are concerned about?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > HTH
> > > > --
> > > > Kalen Delaney
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > > > server is that running it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||No, not yet. But I think your instinct was correct, let's see if Brian
responds.
Kevin Connell, MCDBA
----
The views expressed here are my own
and not of my employer.
----
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:uEdMlteXDHA.2392@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> But are we sure that is a tangent?
> --
> HTH
> --
> Kalen Delaney
> SQL Server MVP
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
> "Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
> news:uhfZwpeXDHA.2568@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > started us on the tangent regarding memory instead of database size :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> > ----
> > The views expressed here are my own
> > and not of my employer.
> > ----
> > "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> > news:OwS5OjeXDHA.2384@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > Started what? We still don't know what the original poster was asking
> > about.
> > >
> > > --
> > > HTH
> > > --
> > > Kalen Delaney
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
> > > news:#M15BfeXDHA.1640@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > hal started it
> > > >
> > > > ;)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> > > > ----
> > > > The views expressed here are my own
> > > > and not of my employer.
> > > > ----
> > > > "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:eQ$790dXDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Brian
> > > > >
> > > > > When I read this, I thought the 2GB limit you were referring to
was
> > the
> > > > > database size restriction imposed by MSDE, but other people's
posts
> > > seemed
> > > > > to imply that you were talking about the 2GB memory limitation
> imposed
> > > in
> > > > > all editions except for SQL Server Enterprise Edition running on
> > Windows
> > > > > 2000.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you clarify which 'silly 2GB limit' you are concerned about?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > HTH
> > > > > --
> > > > > Kalen Delaney
> > > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > > > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > > > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > > > > server is that running it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Kalen's right, he could have been talking about the 2GB database limit in
MSDE. But since he didn't mention MSDE, and this isn't the MSDE newsgroup,
I went with the memory limit as what he was asking about.
I happen to agree that the 2GB database limit in MSDE is silly. But getting
around that one is much easier and cheaper. Either split your data over
multiple databases in a single MSDE instance, or (in this case) spend under
a $1000 (even if you aren't a non-profit) to get Standard Edition + 5 CALs.
ATTENTION 501(c)(3)s: The cheapest way for you to get Microsoft software is
to find a Microsoft employee who donates to you and ask them to donate
software instead of cash. The employee can purchase the software at the
employee store at a dramatic discount, and donation to a 501(c)(3) is one of
the things they are allowed to do with that software. Microsoft will even
match the donation with additional software. I know charities whose entire
offices have been outfitted this way. So get your fundraising people moving
:-)
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
news:OwS5OjeXDHA.2384@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Started what? We still don't know what the original poster was asking
about.
> --
> HTH
> --
> Kalen Delaney
> SQL Server MVP
> www.SolidQualityLearning.com
>
> "Kevin" <ReplyTo@.Newsgroups.only> wrote in message
> news:#M15BfeXDHA.1640@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > hal started it
> >
> > ;)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kevin Connell, MCDBA
> > ----
> > The views expressed here are my own
> > and not of my employer.
> > ----
> > "Kalen Delaney" <replies@.public_newsgroups.com> wrote in message
> > news:eQ$790dXDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > When I read this, I thought the 2GB limit you were referring to was
the
> > > database size restriction imposed by MSDE, but other people's posts
> seemed
> > > to imply that you were talking about the 2GB memory limitation imposed
> in
> > > all editions except for SQL Server Enterprise Edition running on
Windows
> > > 2000.
> > >
> > > Can you clarify which 'silly 2GB limit' you are concerned about?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > --
> > > HTH
> > > --
> > > Kalen Delaney
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > www.SolidQualityLearning.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Brian Cody" <bjc9019@.rit.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:034701c35d11$a5e1c610$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> > > > We are a nonprofit organization needing an MSSQL server
> > > > able to pass the silly 2 gb limit. What is the cheapest
> > > > solution? The only computer which needs to access the
> > > > server is that running it.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>