> > UMS was introduced in MS SQL 2000 which is very far from Sybase
> > SQL Server. MS SQL 2000 and MS SQL 4.2 (where MS take Sybase
> > SQL Server, iirc) are completely different products
> >
> I haven't tracked MS SQL Server so I can't say for sure, but changing
> the code is a great deal easier than changing the architecture, and
> changing the architecture is a great deal easier than changing the
> mindset of the developers.

They said that MS SQL since v7 changed internal architecture significally.
I believe them

> If you doubt this

Why do you think i doubt this ?

> look at Firebird. I've
> been explaining for well over five years that what I did in 1984 made
> sense in 1984 but doesn't make sense in 2001, 2003, 2005, or 2006. Once
> developers get holy religion, it is next to impossible to budge them.

Where do you see "holy religion" at Firebird ? Or you about another DBMS ?:)

> This is true at MySQL, Firebird, and the VAX DBMS guys who morphed DEC's
> CODASYL database into Rdb/VMS. And operating system guys are even worse.

MS SQL team != MS Windows team. And MS have resources to buy
best brains to work on MS SQL. And they did so

Regards,
Vlad