>>>>>>To everyone who responsed to this....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have spent the last 2 weeks creating tables and writing scripts in SQL to support a small C# WinForms contact management
>>>>>>application a client hired me to write.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I posted this thread because I thought that 1) SQL was overkill, and 2) every time I have tried to install any version of SQL there
>>>>>>are failures.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sure enough I went to my client's office at lunch to install SQL and the app. The SQL installation failed. This is the reason:
>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/968749
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Notice the "workaround". Notice that to fix this I will have to download, install, and run some other tool, and then hope that this
>>>>>>will be all of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is exactly why I didn't want to go with SQL, or any other server based DB. Had I gone with VFP or Access, my client would
>>>>>>be using his software right now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now some of you will inevitably say, have him do this, or ask him to install that... This guy is an Allstate insurance agent with the
>>>>>>computer literacy of my 7 year old. He expects me, rightfully so, to show up, push a few buttons, and voila! - instant software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Al have always held to the rule of using the right tool for the job. SQL was not the right too for this job.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well I *did* suggest the CE version. No install issues with that......
>>>>
>>>>And didn't we suggest SQL EXpress 2008?
>>>>
>>>>And if a developer says "every time I have tried to install any version of SQL there
>>>>are failures." I would be tempted to look for the one constant in the equation <bg>
>>>
>>>
>>>OTOH maybe some people are installing on a slightly grubbier user base than you high flyers up there in the clouds.
>>>
>>>There's a lot to be said for being able to install something that has no problem with whatever else is already on the machine and ,aybe fox is a bit more like that than SQL Server.
>>
>>Ok, quite possible. But there is also the possibility that after getting an error saying there was a problem installing SQL2005 a 10 minute effort to try SQL Express 2008, which should have been the first try, might have yielded better results.
>>
>>Just got the impression from statements like "every time I've tried to install SQL ... " that the problem was not with hardware, software or some inherent weakness in SQL Express 2008 but with unfamiliarity leading to frustration ( I've certainly experienced that enough in my own learning curve with SQL to consider the possibility <s> )
>>
>>I think Bill Kuhn's offer to help him get over the hump was quite generous and Kevin would be wise to take advantage of it. I've mentored a lot of VFP developers through the transition to a SQL backend ( and in this case I think we are even talking a .NET app he thinks would somehow be simpler using an OLEDB connection to DBC ) and I have seldom found the impediments are in the technology itself.
>>
>>I don't think anything with .NET using OLEDB to DBCs spells automatic "no problem with whatever else " etc.
>
>
>On the SQL version some things seem to expect 2005. I was working through an MVC tutorial (nerddinners) in VS2008 and when I tried to add a database from within VS2008 it expects 2005 . (incidentally I tried re installing 2005 and got an error) But then this is a very grubby machine. Maybe I should have a cleanup.

Once a db has been converted to 2008 or was created in 2008 you can no longer attach it in on a 2005 server. You can, however, attach a 2005 db to a 2008 server without a problem.

KG or someone can certainly speak to the reason more knowledgeably but I believe it has to do with metadata about the database. But this means you are better off to have a 2008 server on the client so you don't have to worry about not being able to use databases created elsewhere.