Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Vista Not Compatible With SQL Server

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:31 AM
from the some-extra-patience-required dept.
Operating Systems Software Windows Microsoft
kiran_n sent in an article by Fortune's Owen Thomas on Vista not being compatible with SQL Server. An excerpt: "But now Microsoft has a problem. Vista, its long-awaited update to the Windows operating system, can't run the current version of SQL Server. The company is working on a SQL upgrade that is compatible with Vista — called SQL Server 2005 Express Service Pack 2 — but it's in beta and can be licensed only for testing purposes. Microsoft hasn't set a release date for the new SQL program."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Vista Not Compatible With SQL Server 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Oh NO! (Score:5, Funny)

    by anss123 (985305) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:33AM (#17269044)
    I can't run SQL Server on Vista! Christmas is ruined! Thanks for nothing Microsoft >:(

  • If anybody... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NineNine (235196) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:41AM (#17269088) Homepage
    If anybody is moving critical databases to an OS that isn't even officially released yet, then they deserve to have their eyeballs poked out with hot, metal pokers, and then promptly fired.

    In other breaking news, Oracle does not work with Red Hat Enterprise Linux V.5.

    • If anybody is moving ANY critical piece of software supposed to work, should better think to stay with another OS other than Vista.
      Much better if other than Micsrosoft's anything.

    • Re:If anybody... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _mythdraug_ (27158) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:54AM (#17269214)
      Beg to differ, but the OS has been released to volume customers for about 3 weeks now.

        • Re:If anybody... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday December 16 2006, @01:11PM (#17269936) Homepage
          It has been released. It's been out of beta for a while - the RTM is available from MSDN right now. The RTM is what the release discs are pressed from.. MS aren't going to make any changes now, except fixes via Windows Update.

          Of course the old rule applies - never install version 1 of anything. The last beta was so poor I haven't even be able to bring myself to install the RTM on the test machine dedicated to it... and there's no customer demand yet (takes about a year to filter through normally. Just starting to get Solaris 10 interest for example).

  • Other Software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:44AM (#17269110) Homepage Journal
    SQL Server is definitely not the only existing software that won't work on Vista. Of course, as always, people will swallow the incompatibilities between versions of Microsoft software much easier than they'll swallow the incompatibilities between Microsoft and non-Microsoft software. Likely, many people will express their anger over the incompatibilities, but not attach any hard consequences.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HappySqurriel (1010623)
      Likely, many people will express their anger over the incompatibilities, but not attach any hard consequences.

      The unfortunate problem is what kind of consequences can actually be "given" to Microsoft?

      From a buisness perspective, if you stop using Microsoft's operating system you'll have dozens (or possibly hundreds) of applications which are either not supported or not functional on Linux/Unix/OSX; these applications represent Millions of dollars in licences or development that would have to be re-spent imm

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
        ``From a buisness perspective, if you stop using Microsoft's operating system you'll have dozens (or possibly hundreds) of applications which are either not supported or not functional on Linux/Unix/OSX; these applications represent Millions of dollars in licences or development that would have to be re-spent immediately.''

        While I appreciate your concern, the situation is much more complicated than you present it. First of all, there is no need to spend millions of dollars _immediately_; with a lot of softw

  • actually far worse (Score:5, Informative)

    by minus_273 (174041) <aaaaa.SPAM@yahoo@com> on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:44AM (#17269118) Journal
    Actually, not only does it not work with SQL 2005 but it doesnt work with SQL 2000 either. In fact if you try to install SQL 2000 on vista it will try to stop you with messages saying the software has been tested to be incompatible with Vista. MS has not gone on the record that SQL 2000 will NEVER work with Vista [microsoft.com]. They want everyone to upgrade to SQL 2005 and have no plans to fix SQL 2000. If anyone hasn't used SQL 2005, they have removed DTS packages and the replacement is so horribly broken that simple things like copying a table from one database to another does not work.

    Good thing there is windows server 2003 still.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by minus_273 (174041)
        No, it does not work. Stop lying. The Transfer SQL Server Objects task does not work and actually performs an incorrect query on the source database. You get a message saying the table you have selected to copy does not exist.
        This is knows as the transfer tables hell. example 1 [google.com]

        another thread [google.com]

        and so on. Just go on google groups and you will see tons of people on the microsoft newsgroups why have been screwed over.

        If you have figured out how to change the query that it performs, please let the rest of us

        • Re:actually far worse (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Zebra_X (13249) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:51PM (#17269722)
          Copy database objects from sql server 2000 never really worked correctly either. Under very simple scenarios it works, but when there are foreign key constraints and many related tables sql server does not usually copy the objects in the correct order, and you get resulting constraint violations which ends up faling the package. My experience has been that it is one of the least reliable ways of moving tables and data between systems. To be frank, basing your release process or relying on it to propogate changes from one environment to another isn't great. No other system would you be able to use this process. Just use SQL scripts and insert scripts like everyone else.

          For the most part SSIS is a huge improvement over DTS, it is also much more scalable, and now has it's own dedicated runtime. Components for SSIS are also C# components as opposed to com components under DTS. Theoretically if you code is written well, you can reuse parts of it inside a 2005 DB with the CLR enabled.

          "Horribly broken" is really a rather exagerated claim. No one's software is perfect.

          Also, it's rather rude to call individuals "liars" when you don't have any evidence that that individual is in fact lying.
          • if basic functionality that was in the previous version and supposed to be in the current one is not there, then yes, it is horribly broken. As for rudeness, i called him a liar because this is a known bug thats been around since sql server 2005 was released. If he cant show how he got it to work, then he is lying. Its not an accusation, the query that is run is incorrect. How will it work for him and not anyone else?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by minus_273 (174041)
        sucks if you are using the development edition on your desktop and your new machine comes with Vista doesnt it? since this is the el-cheapo $18 developer edition, it is fully functional but does not support connections from other machines. There is no option to run it on another machine unless you use remote desktop.
  • So much for Windows being great for backwards compatibility.

  • This is expected (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bogaboga (793279) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:48AM (#17269162)
    Since when has Microsoft rolled out a new operating system that is [100%] compatible with its own existing software? Even though I am no geek, I expected updated versions of existing Microsoft software to come Vista. So to me, this is expected.

    Think of it: Did anyone of you expect the current version of SQL Server to simply play nice with the "new and improved" Microsoft Vista OS, with all enhancements, bell and whistles? Heck, these "enhancements" took more than 5 years to implement! Way more time than was planned. Give me a break!

  • Misleading Article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by carlislematthew (726846) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:50AM (#17269178)
    The article is about SQL Server *Express* Edition not working on Vista! This has NOTHING to do with the normal SQL Server edition that doesn't run on "workstation" OSs anyway. The express edition is a local (no network connections) version of SQL Server that developers use to develop against so that they don't need a full server to develop against.

    The article implies (and pretty much states) that Vista doesn't work with SQL server, implying that your client/server programs that depend on SQL Server won't work on Vista. They may in fact *not* work, but it has nothing to do with SQL Server!!!

    The article is written by someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, or they DO know what they're talking about and they wanted to get readers and ad-clicks.

    • Express Edition is not intended for testing only. It's also meant to be used by desktop software in need of a lightweight database engine; a replacement for MS Jet.

  • FUD at its best (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThinkFr33ly (902481) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:52AM (#17269200)
    First of all, the title of the post (and the article's title) are misleading. "SQL Server" (suggesting its full fledged version) was NEVER compatible with Vista, or XP for that matter. It's meant for servers, not desktops.

    Second, Vista is NOT RELEASED YET. Despite that, early adopters can download SQL Server Express SP1, which runs fine on Vista, although it is not technically "supported" by Microsoft. In fact, almost all of the issues are easily worked around by running the setup as admin, and SQL Server Management Studio as admin.

    For those people who have additional problems, there is plenty of good documentation [msdn.com] on how to get it running, or they can install the beta of SP2, which should be RTM by the time Vista hits the shelves in the end of Jan anyway.

    So despite the author's obvious attempts at a sensational title that would get him lots of hits (and, evidentially, posted on Slashdot), his content is almost pure FUD... and pure gold for Slashdot.

    • Re:FUD at its best (Score:4, Informative)

      by thona (556334) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:04PM (#17269306) Homepage
      Your post?

      Bet on. One of the most idiotic ever.

      See: ::"SQL Server" (suggesting its full fledged version) was NEVER compatible with Vista, ::or XP for that matter. It's meant for servers, not desktops.

      Wrong, it was compatible. It is not meant to be used on that - on a poroduction environment, but it is compatible, and a good reason to install it on XP is development. Like having a SQL Server avaialble on your laptop. ::Second, Vista is NOT RELEASED YET.

      Bullshit. Serious. Vista was RTM what - three weeks ago? It is even avaialble in a boxed vervion in shops already in limited distribution (i.e. in SOME shops, wide availability is in january). Companies / developers have download access ot the gold/rtm master code for weeks - like my company is rolling out Vista business between christmas and new year on all desktops, and is inthe middle of testing that.

      Check your facts. Idiotic statements like yours make open source look bad.

        • Re:FUD at its best (Score:4, Insightful)

          by thona (556334) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:57PM (#17269788) Homepage
          ::Vista has NOT been made available to the public Ah yes. So - what are you getting when you buy vista now, there: http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/11/13/HNmscomp usa_1.html [infoworld.com] More info: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=21919 [itbusinessedge.com] It is not in wide distribution, but it is out. You an walk intoa CompUsa NOW and get a copy. ::It was made available on MSDN / Windows Connect for EARLY ADOPTERS Bullshit. It was made available. That simple. SOME are early in adopting, but it is the real RTM version. Sure, driver support through third party is crap, but that is not going to change inthe next 30 days. It is the RTM version. The versionsin the shop will be identical to the released images- it just now takes time to get them manufactured and into the distribution. ::If your company runs full fledged SQL Server on desktops, they're morons for multiple reasons. So, I am a moron? Let me get this straight - how else am I supposed to make SQL Server development woork wih reporting services and/or SSIS on my laptop without internet connection? Not all uses of a server product are - for prouduction use. ::And your response to my post showed your idiocy, not mine Let me guess -yyou are american and thus do not value the reality.

  • Just for clarification (Score:4, Informative)

    by Espectr0 (577637) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:15PM (#17269398) Journal
    This is about the desktop version (SQL Server Express). Companies don't run that, so this isn't much of a big deal. The regular SQL Server works fine.

  • Lame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nwoolls (520606) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:16PM (#17269406)
    This crap is getting lame. I'm seeing more and more unfounded "articles" on here because they have to make sure they get the stories Digg has. Newsflash folks. 99% of the articles on Digg are fanboy crap. This one is no different.

    What's funny is there are already numerous comments here, but apparently NONE of those judging and commenting have actually tried what the article seems to be talking about. MSSQL Server 2000 and 2005 run *just fine* under Vista. There may be some minor compatibility problems and yes, the installer warns of these, but you can click right through that. Maybe some issues crop up if you tried to use it as a full fledged server solution as is, but for development purposed they work *just fine*.

    Plus, this article is talking about MSSQL Server 2005 Express, which is the local, chopped up locked down version. The rest of the versions work just fine, plus there will be, soon enough, updates to increase the compatibility.

    Please keep this kind of crap off Slashdot. It's fine to love OS and hate MS. But at least get your facts *sort of* straight. This is just way off the mark.

    • Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shados (741919) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:53PM (#17269736)
      Worse is, if someone DARED say something similar about Linux, everyone would be up and arm against them. Like if we saw a "MySQL doesn't work on the new version of Ubuntu!" or something. People would flip, -EVEN- if MySQL was only in some ultra-unstable-experimental-of-doom branch.

  • SQL Express vs SQL Server (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swalters1 (1008477) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:30PM (#17269512)
    For those unaware this is primarily a concern for people who develop stand alone applications that currently use SQL Express.

    Why use SQL express? It's more stable and more flexible than just using ODBC to connect to an Access database file. Plus you can use all other features that you can not use in Access. It's also the defacto standard for Visual Studio 2005 developers so it gets a lot of use now adays in development. It's also far easier to use than installing the clients for Oracle or MySQL and reduces your program's foot print. (1.2MB vs 35 MB)

    I actually use this, and when testing Vista didn't run into a single problem with it in it's current state. (It installed and ran fine under Beta 1 and 2 although it warned you that it could be unstable, it seems in RC and RTM they actually added it to the "Can't install" list)

    And there's more than one way to connect to a database, SQL express isnt' the primary route, so the article is being VERY presumptious about impact on the industry. It's not writen by someone who knows the difference between SQL server (The server app that runs on Windows Server 2000, 2003 and uses a client program to handle the connections to a server) and the SQLExpress App (For use in stand alone programs and development environments and will not allow connections from any machine other than the host machine)

    It's also amazing that the author of the article thought that you wouldn't test seperately on both platforms. He makes it sound like having to test on Xp then on Vista is a bad thing. Honestly, if you arn't testing on both and on Windows 2000, you're not doing your job right.

    Is it important? Yes, it sucks to have apps that I was testing under Vista Beta 1, that I can no longer test because of the "no-install" flag. But SP to the rescue!

    As for using Oracle vs MS-SQL, which is the bigger point. Well. having to deal with both at work I can tell you, MS-SQL is far easier to maintain and manage and back up. Oracle still has far too many legacy items in 9i and 10 that require "special" treatment. Not to mention that it's error reporting system is pointless 90% of the time, and we have to hand step everything we do to figure out why we're getting an error instead of a single error message that says, "OCA-XXXXX: Column can not hold data" instead of "ORA-XXX: 'DOCNAME' is too long for column." You can imagine what a pain Oracle is when you've got an SQL statement that a page long. I won't even go into how unfriendly Oracle's support is. Half the time you ask them for help the answer is "If you were an Oracle trained admin you'ld know that." How about, "If you put it in the manual, I'd already know that. Or if your people would reply to emails without the snotty tone I'd know that." Ug...

    Sorry about the rant, enjoy!

  • Ironic (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Broken Bottle (84695) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:32PM (#17269544)
    It's kind of ironic that SQL won't run on Vista when Vista was originally slated to have a file system BASED ON SQL. They must have had some serious issues with that file system :)

  • Latest news! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Klaidas (981300) on Saturday December 16 2006, @05:01PM (#17271710) Homepage
    Some server software might not work on an OS that is in development stage.
    Later it has also been announced that the Sun is hot. We're waiting for more breaking news...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nullforce (743444)
      SQL Server Developer Edition probably falls into this category, as well as SQL Server Express. Both of these might be expected to run on a workstation.

    • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Informative)

      by mgh02114 (655185) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:44AM (#17269108)
      people get what they deserve for running a Server application on a Desktop OS.


      With all due respect, RTFA:

      (Before any more of you fire off an outraged e-mail informing me that Vista doesn't run SQL Server, go back and read the above paragraphs again: I'm talking about SQL Server 2005 Express, which is the desktop counterpart of SQL Server - not the server version.)

      • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by xoundmind (932373) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:43PM (#17269618)
        RFTA
        Indeed. And perhaps the real question: Why the hell should we care about the compatability virtues of a workstation SQL server?

        • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jimicus (737525) on Saturday December 16 2006, @06:35PM (#17272342) Homepage
          Why the hell should we care about the compatability virtues of a workstation SQL server?

          How about because if you were developing code for me, and I found you testing your code against the production database on a real server, you'd be out the door so fast your head would spin?

          (Though TBH I wouldn't give you access to the production database anyhow, but that's by the by.)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Assmasher (456699)
            So I guess this means you test your code against a different version of SQL Server database than runs in production, eh? If you did that at our company "you'd be out the door so fast your head would spin."

            This is why people have QA servers to test against. I certainly hope, for the sake of your company, you don't just test against your workstation and then place it in production. LOL.

      • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pete6677 (681676) on Saturday December 16 2006, @01:10PM (#17269926)
        Considering how Vista doesn't really have all that much to offer over XP anyway, I'm surprised by how many software packages are incompatible with it. Did Microsoft take a copy of XP, tweak it just enough to break compatibility along with system stability, throw in some trivial new features, then call it Vista?

        I'd be very surprised if anyone can make a business case for "upgrading" to Vista. Other than a small handful of situations, I can't imagine it would be worth the trouble.

    • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Salvance (1014001) * on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:01PM (#17269278) Homepage Journal
      I lead the IT department of a small company, and we use SQL Server Express on desktops all the time. Our clients use it as well, since almost all of them are far too small to own a real server (e.g. restaurants, doctors offices, etc.). We ran into this last week when we installed Vista for the first time to see what would happen. Needless to say, we were rather shocked when none of our internally developed apps would work. VERY annoying.

    • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:08PM (#17269344) Journal
      Well, since even Windows server is a desktop OS (it's a server, why is everything done via a GUI and no decent way to script half the things you need to do on it?) it's perfectly reasonable, really. The very name 'Windows' gives it away as a desktop OS, even if they try and tack on the word 'Server'.

      • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by msobkow (48369) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:21PM (#17269444) Journal

        I'd agree except that most boxen now use some sort of GUI for the admins, though the older and more experienced admins still live in command shells and scripting (automation!)

        But the question of what constitutes a "server" is normally a question of hardware capacity, not artificial restrictions imposed by multi-layer bundling. The prices for AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, Oracle, Sybase, etc. (i.e. both OS and core services) are based on CPU capacity, number of users, and other metrics that have nothing to do with some vague concept of server vs. client. (Plus X-11 and related display technologies reverse the terms anyhow, so they really have no meaning. I prefer digraphs -- data/command comes from here and goes there.)

        The add-on modules for most operating systems and products are feature add-ons -- GIS data type package, enhanced application integration/administration packages, developer/compiler package, etc. The only operating system I know of that clips out all the shell scripting, scheduling services, and other components needed to do real work is Windows.

        There are no "desktop" or "home" editions of Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, VM/MVS, AS400, or other systems because the concept is irrational. You run the same binaries on a two-way HP-UX desktop as on an 8-32 way SMP server. It's just minor configuration variables that change to tune performance; Microsoft is the only one to try to make you pay for those tweaks.

        Or you can download a package that will apply the registry changes and make your desktop act like a "server". To me that just highlights the inanity of the marketting distinctions.

        • Re:I can't help but wonder... (Score:4, Funny)

          by Chops (168851) on Saturday December 16 2006, @04:26PM (#17271468)
          (Plus X-11 and related display technologies reverse the terms anyhow, so they really have no meaning.

          I applaud your clarity of reason, sir!

          "Normally, your boss pays you, but when you buy him a Christmas present, you're effectively paying him. So you can see that this whole 'employee' thing is pretty meaningless."

          "Cheap, unpowered speakers normally emit sound, but if you plug them into the microphone jack, you'll be able to record. It just goes to show you what a bourgeoisie lie this so-called 'stereo equipment' is."

          "I flew from New York to LA last week. Now I'm flying back, so as you can see names of cities have no meaning."

          I prefer digraphs -- data/command comes from here and goes there.)

          Oh, I see -- you don't like words that describe things that are different at some times than they are at others. You'd rather use digraphs [wikipedia.org]. Now I understand.

          "I connected to the mail Ph using my work Oo instead of the Ee I use at home."

    • Re:I believe... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jarjarthejedi (996957) <bookreader13.cox@net> on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:42AM (#17269100) Journal
      Main Entry: irony
      Pronunciation: 'I-r&-nE also 'I(-&)r-nE
      Function: noun
      1 : a pretense of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning -- called also Socratic irony
      2 a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning b : a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form characterized by irony c : an ironic expression or utterance
      3 a (1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony

      Nope, doesn't look like irony to me. Irony would be if this problem was discovered while trying to upgrade Microsoft's own servers to Vista. This is just poor planning and communication between departments.

    • Re:Why? - For development. (Score:4, Informative)

      by ziani (255157) on Saturday December 16 2006, @11:57AM (#17269244) Homepage
      You install the "Express" version (which is what the article is talking about) on a desktop/laptop for development purposes. For example, I'm developing a specialized information tracking application that is intended to run on my company's intranet. Our company is 100% MS shop, so we have to design for SQL Server as the back end. I'm using MS Visual Web Developer 2005 Express to create the ASP.Net "business logic" or "mddleware", and a web-based user interface. Visual Web Developer 2005 Express automatically installs SQL Server Express and integrates nicely.

      Just not on Vista, it appears.

    • Re:Must have really bad code (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DrDitto (962751) on Saturday December 16 2006, @12:47PM (#17269666)
      SQL Server is Microsoft's best code. It is clean and well-designed. This is well-known in Microsoft's circle of internal developers. The current incompatibility on a desktop OS probably stems from performance optimizations. It is often said that operating systems just get in the way of DBMS systems.

      • Uh, no, Windows is not good at backwards compatibility: the entire OS has changed radically over the last 15 years. There are some compatibility hacks, but old software does not work well on newer versions of Windows.

        In contrast, 20 year old UNIX software compiles, runs, and takes full advantage of modern hardware; the APIs have hardly changed because UNIX got them right in the first place. That includes the window system.

        You might want to try that sometime, in practice its not so clear cut on the UNIX side. And yes, I have experience in this area.

      • Re:I am running SQL Server Standard 64 bit (Score:4, Interesting)

        by quazee (816569) on Saturday December 16 2006, @01:04PM (#17269876)
        Although there is no official word from Microsoft about Jet deprecation, Microsoft has stopped actively developing Jet.
        There are numerous clues which may indicate Jet deprecation:

        1. Jet is not ported to x64 platform, and probably will never be, according to MS devs.
        You can only install 32-bit Jet 4.0 SP8 on an x64-based Windows OS.
        Since Jet is an in-process component, it is not possible to use a Jet database in a 64-bit application.

        2. Access 2007 uses its own, non-redistributable database back-end, codenamed Ace. Jet databases are supported only for legacy reasons.

        3. Jet libraries have been removed from MDAC 2.8 package. You have to install Jet 4.0 separately.

        4. Many newer MS articles and whitepapers suggest using SQL Server 2005 Express as opposing to Jet, as a superior technology.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.