IntellliSense backward compatibility

Posted by CAMick on 10/6/2011 at 2:19 PM

At least give us the highlighted parenthesis....please

Posted by cHi-aLi on 10/3/2011 at 7:20 AM

no news?

Posted by I. SALOM on 6/9/2011 at 4:53 AM

Does anyone know if Microsoft is working on this issue?

Posted by Roopesh Kumar on 2/4/2011 at 2:33 PM

Any news on this?

Posted by Muthu Devadass on 11/23/2010 at 6:20 AM

any news on this?

Posted by Ben Joyce on 11/23/2010 at 4:45 AM

Any news on this?

Posted by Muthu Devadass on 11/15/2010 at 8:19 AM

Please include intellisense for SQL server 2005

Posted by ShivaKrishna on 7/14/2010 at 9:38 PM

I feel I am cheated by MS. I installed SSMS 2008 just for the intellisense. It is really shame that they can't provide intellisense for their database. Shame on u MS. After all these years you cannot create a Sql IDE with basic features like intellisense, code formatting, exporting to excel, filtering objects in the object explorer(the one you have is pretty lame) and the list goes on

Posted by THaynes on 6/28/2010 at 11:41 AM

Put me in the camp of folks who wasted hours getting SQL Server Management Studio for 2008 installed, almost entirely for the intellisense, only to find it doesn't work because all our DBs are 2005 (and will be for years to come). Sigh... Someone, please mod this thing so it thinks 2005 DBs are really 2008.

Posted by Daniel Smith on 5/10/2010 at 6:28 AM

How can massively popular items like this be completely ignored, yet so much time be spent on reporting/analytic stuff in R2???

It's just beyond belief that 2008 R2 has addressed practically *none* of the issues customers are voting for on Connect.

Posted by msleibel on 3/6/2010 at 11:24 AM

Still no solution. Will it be fixed in SQL Server 2010, 2012, 2014...etc. Really, how hard can this be. So frustrating that if you use multiple instances of SQL Server between 2005 and 2008 you loose productivity. We can't upgrade to 2008 because of other limitations and compatibility to Java apps. I know the answer to that is only use .NET. This is why people are leaving SQL Server in droves for MySQL. We're already in the planning process to move. Simple things make a difference.

Posted by Rashad Rivera on 12/16/2009 at 8:30 AM

The amount of time Intellisense saves me in 2008 is expoential. Atleast give us the ability to use 2008's Studio Manamement against a 2005 server with Intellisense.

Posted by Yasir Javed on 12/4/2009 at 12:01 AM

Its not only important but i think its must ............

Posted by Hubert Kerfuffle on 11/11/2009 at 5:56 AM

Added the 368th 'Yes' vote ... 4 against.

Popular feature => MS not interested because the Closed stamp has been applied.

Posted by juanMa2V on 11/6/2009 at 9:06 AM

Hello all.

I have just upgraded our company's management studio, BI, etc. but not our SQL Instances. I did this and wasted about 2 hours mainly because of the intellisense feature. To find this out is such a big disappointment.

I honestly expect this to be fixed.

Posted by Pieter Lourens on 10/1/2009 at 10:53 PM

Hi Guys,

I really think that MS should consider adding Intellisense support for SQL 2005. It is one of the best features available, even if you are a professional DBA or Developer, or just starting out with the product, it makes your live much easier writing queries. I believe everyone has a couple of DB's to support 2000,2005 and now 208, and if you get used to new features added in later releases of a product, you continue to use those feutures. Many of the new features makes working on the older versions easier and you can pass on the work to jnr's much easier because for them to understand the structures of the DB's is easier with intellisense.

Regards

Pieter

Posted by Stephen Mills on 7/14/2009 at 10:53 PM

I sometimes don't understand Microsoft's reasoning. This has a rating of 4.9 with 354 votes (when I looked at it). I would have thought with that much input, they would have made it a priority. Now that it wasn't there initially, we'll be lucky for V2 on IntelliSense to be in SQL 2008 R2 and still support SQL 2008. Microsoft doesn't seem to want backwards compatibility ever since SQL 2005 came out (editing DTS packages, database diagrams,...) and now in SQL 2008 (SQL 2005 SSIS can't be managed with SSMS 2008). Please, please, add less features, but have them work very well and have the tools support previous versions. Don't make us curse MS for making the job of an DBA harder than it needs to be.

Thanks.

Posted by projectped on 1/2/2009 at 11:30 AM

I too had the CTM version and loved it--I acquired it at the Microsoft Launch event for 2008. I installed VS2008 and the TFS plugin afterward, which hosed SQL Server 2008. I tried reinstalling, and everything else to no avail. I purchsed a Development Edition of SQL Server 2008 hoping things would be cleared up and I could get back to using intellisense, which is priceless when it works. Well, the new install fixed the rest of the VS2008-related issues (for instance, I couldn't even open items in Object Explorer) . But, I just found out that intellisense isn't backward compatible with 2005. I've tried RedGate's offering in this area and I found it to be slow and clunky. Natively built intellisense was far superior. I'd rather have SQL Server's intellisense that wasn't working 100% than no intellisense at all. I really hope a service pack will add this back in. I mean I REALLY hope so!

Posted by Daniel Smith on 12/29/2008 at 2:23 AM

Intellisense was one of the major reasons I upgraded so I have to agree that it's pretty disappointing to find support reduced to only 2008 instances. Really hope support can be added back in (even if it's just an option) in a service pack or something.

Posted by MSBassSinger on 12/17/2008 at 8:59 AM

Removing this feature in the RTM was a poor choice. Simply inform the SQL developer that Intellisense provides SQL 2008 specific results and let the user decide whether to use it. Why not simply make a checkbox under the Intellisense Options to allow or disallow Intellisense on SQL 2005? None of us need Microsoft as our SQL nanny.

Posted by OliverB on 10/21/2008 at 5:49 AM

I think this is a feature which should be backwards compatible. From my point of view as a developer & 2nd line support, I would love MS to provide this feature out of the box so that I don't have to purchase 3rd party add-on software from suppliers like red-gate to support existing systems.

Posted by ccahill on 10/17/2008 at 8:37 AM

I am coming in a little late on this I guess, but I agree that it was very helpful when I was using Intellisense in the CTP version we tried. If there is such an issue where it would suggest wrong syntax, perhaps add a note or warning somewhere when connecting to SQL 2005 boxes. But don't take it out totally! That is like taking out spellcheck for Word, just because it suggests a word you do not really mean to use.

Posted by Rhodri on 10/15/2008 at 6:26 AM

I don't suppose there's a registry update that could be applied to the RTM version? We'll be on SQL 2005 for a good while to come. In the mean time I'm using the free version of SQL Prompt (v2).

Posted by Emil M on 10/15/2008 at 12:40 AM

I feel like I have been scammed. I downloaded and installed the new management console JUST for the intellisense, and found out that it didn't work on 2000. MS can't expect the customers to upgrade the whole SQL Server just for this, it's obscene!

Posted by khaff on 9/12/2008 at 4:12 AM

How very disappointing to "upgrade", and then find out that a decreased leval of functionality has occured. I think that the end user should decide whether the functionality is useful, and be given the power to disable or enable based on individual preference.

Posted by Carlos.V on 9/9/2008 at 2:36 PM

It's very disappointing to lose this feature. Please, at least add the option to enable it (with a disclaimer on the syntax issues, to give you peace of mind).
The user community has spoken. We prefer having partial intellisense on SQL2005 than no intellisense at all.

Posted by ignatandrei on 8/18/2008 at 12:46 AM

Please add a registry setting in order to enable it for advanced users - that know what the sql syntax are ...

Posted by Buddhatripp on 8/14/2008 at 6:05 AM

I just do not understand why this could not be a decision left up to the users via a configuration option in SQL Server Management Studio. It seems unnecessarily restrictive to turn off a feature that was working in pre-RC/RTM. Turn the setting off by default and warn users who turn it on that it may not work perfectly. There is no good reason to eliminate such a valuable feature entirely.

Posted by TampaSQLDBA on 8/13/2008 at 11:21 AM

You better fix this! Should have been included in 2005 anyways..

Posted by rept on 8/13/2008 at 6:44 AM

I really don't understand why this isn't working for older instances. Redgate can do it just fine!!! This is something I would expect to worked out of the box!

Posted by kianryan on 8/4/2008 at 4:03 PM

I'm amazed the support has been pulled. For me, one of the *only* advantages of SQL 2008 was the additional tools support to 2k5 servers. As a contractor and freelancer, most of my time is spent working on other people's SQL Server instances, and although their servers may change, my need to get code out quickly and efficiently does not.

Back to Red Gate SQL Prompt for me then. Get your act together Redmond. The rest of the .NET development environment is excellent and smooth, SQL development is a real hitch by comparison.

Posted by Bronumski on 8/4/2008 at 7:35 AM

I understand the reason why it has not been included but I think the benefits out way the issues. At least disable the backwards compatibility by default and force the user to confirm that they acknowledge the issues before they can enable it.

Posted by Microsoft on 7/23/2008 at 1:26 PM

Hi Whitney,

As we've discussed off-line, I would like to close the loop on this item. Customer's message was very well received and product team really appreciated it. It is version one of IntelliSense and team is already working on the next set of features. Although I had to close this issue as by design, I can certainly say good amount of customer values are coming up.

Regards,
Eric

Posted by Devastator on 7/16/2008 at 10:40 AM

VERY surprised that it does not now work with SQL 2005 db's.
We will be instituting KATMAI along side of 2005 db's, as well as using/writing extended sp's and connections, I fell it is very important to get 2005 into IntelliSense as well.

Posted by DVins on 7/13/2008 at 3:49 PM

Mainly two words: absolutely asinine. Intellisense for SQL Server 2005 needs to be restored. This may have been acceptable had the cat never been let out of the bag; then at least our hopes and expectations may not have been built. But now, at this point, its one stupid product management decision not to have this implemented.

Posted by KTMT on 7/10/2008 at 6:22 AM

Put it back! It worked great against 2005 db and was a real time saver! No reason not to have it.

Posted by DWalker on 6/25/2008 at 1:56 PM

To clarify: I don't think the team has to implement full lexical support for SQL 2000 and SQL 2005; the way Intellisense worked in SQL 2008 CTP6 when used against a SQL 2005 instance was fine.

Posted by DWalker on 6/25/2008 at 1:54 PM

This is HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE.

I read Whitney's blog, and although Intellisense in SQL 2008 won't be perfect when using it against a SQL 2005 (or 2000) instance, it's sure a heck of a lot better than nothing!

It may be a while before we're able to get all of our servers to SQL 2008, and I would LOVE to be able to use Intellisense until then. Even if it's not perfect!

I suppose it's back to a third-party add-in for us. Too bad.

Posted by Unregistered User on 6/20/2008 at 10:08 AM

I am incensed that this has been disabled in RC0. I attended the "Heroes Happen Here" event in Nashville - IntelliSense was presented as a major feature in the 2008 tools, and we were explicitly told that we would *not* have to connect to a 2008 instance for this to work. Yet another broken promise...

Posted by Danny Ravid on 6/19/2008 at 7:39 AM

Sorry,even though i was a developer long ago and understand development complexity ,this issue is very important feature,you must reconsider supporting sql 2005 ,even if not completly ,ot accuratly,this is a mjor set back for the tool,from every angel i look at it it is a bad idea not having intellisense for sql 2005.

Posted by Michael J. Swart on 6/19/2008 at 7:12 AM

You say "IntelliSense had a high potential to guide users to script incorrect Transact-SQL".
I could live with the odd misplaced red squiggly line if I could have suggestions for table names.

Please consider even an "undocumented feature" where intellisense could be enabled for 2005.

Posted by walkair on 6/18/2008 at 3:54 PM

I'm OK with no support for SQL Server 2000, since 2000 is "too different by definition". As one of the high-level MS people said - "2005 is a revolution". However he also added that 2008 will be an evolution.

Per my understanding, the differences between 2005 and 2008, are 5-10 added T-SQL enhancements and added master/msdb system entities. The differences are additions and nothing is getting removed.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy an argument that 2008 T-SQL subset is too different than 2005 T-SQL subset or that is cost too much.

When it comes to cost, I'm always asking myself - how small third-party Red-Gate can do it and a big MS can't. I amused that usually MS is creating third-party tools "clones" that are usually "less-than-expected-by-industry". These "clones" are not even averaging the competition. Furthermore, if MS was trying to sell Management Studio as a product that would NEVER fly. It is sad but, this kind of "tools neglection" spreading around into stand-alone tools such as Visual Studio for Database Developers a.k.a. "DataDude" - its still less desirable than for instance Red Gate SQL Toolbelt.

My suggestion is, for a long-run MS should adopt "if you can't bit them, just join them" strategy by either buying a fair tool developer (IMO RedGate) or their product(s) (like in case of Dundas) or just create a separate, dynamic and innovative studio. The keywords here are that it should stay separate to stay innovative.
For a short-run, I suggest to give at least Enterprise edition customers (around $25K) a free top-notch tool.

The bottom line is - if MS want to stay alive it should stay competitive with a goal of being innovative.

Posted by Laurence.Rooks on 6/17/2008 at 2:59 PM

I vote for it to be backwards compatible with 2005. For whatever reason, taking out the IntelliSense for non-2008 has broken other aspects of SSMS, including closing of parenthesis hints.

Posted by asdf22 on 6/17/2008 at 8:39 AM

It is VERY important.

Posted by Deon P on 6/14/2008 at 2:33 AM

Not very important - CRUCIAL that it be included. We are going to be working with SQL 2005 for a looong time to come yet...

Posted by SQL_Guru on 6/12/2008 at 10:09 AM

I remember when SQL 2000 came out and replace SQL 7. As soon as it was released I totally stopped using the tools for SQL 7. But 3 years after SQL 2005 was released I still have to use Enterprise Manager frequently on SQL 2000 servers, since they didn't support all the functionality that 2000 EM had. Microsoft seems to not like supporting previous versions and assume everyone will upgrade to the newest greatest version within months of its release. I still get calls from developers (about 4 days ago) on how to work with SQL 2000 diagrams in 2005 Management Studio. I have to tell them that they can't and use Enterprise Manager.

Please don't skimp because you want to only work on 2008 exclusive features. DBAs hate it when their tools don't support previous versions well. I think having it work for 2000, 2005, and 2008 would be best. About half of our 30+ SQL Servers are still running SQL 2000. It wasn't until 2005 SP 2 came out that we decided SQL 2005 was stable enough to widely deploy. It will probably be the same for SQL 2008, but I'm hoping it's better.

Posted by Microsoft on 6/11/2008 at 6:25 PM

Let me share product team’s information about the version support of IntelliSense. This was a truly by-design from the beginning of IntelliSense project and it was a part of business decision. Implementation of IntelliSense requires a full fidelity of engine parser reconstruction in client side using managed code base. Support of multiple server versions means design and implementation of multiple versions of parsers and related infra in parallel. This multiplies time and cost to develop, test and support. At the same time, the core module is an important product base that enables not only IntelliSense feature but also other products including Upgrade Advisor to analyze scripts; in the long term, it is potentially any feature that needs syntactic and semantic understanding of Transact-SQL language.

In CTP5 and CTP6, IntelliSense had a known issue that it did not correctly check the server version so CTP users could connect any version of SQL Server with IntelliSense. While some users didn't notice it, IntelliSense was not correctly working as desired. The impact was that IntelliSense had a high potential to guide users to script incorrect Transact-SQL or to false-negatively indicate that a script has errors while it is perfectly valid in those versions.

Considering the number one goal of IntelliSense is to increase productivity of authoring complex query or stored procedure (or simply Transact-SQL scripts), this issue was regarded as a factor to *decrease productivity* which is a huge negative impact from a new feature.

In RC0, this known issue was corrected that IntelliSense checks the server version and provides its feature on supported version which is SQL Server 2008.

As a version one, IntelliSense is enabled on a subset of Transact-SQL language. It is because the large scope of work to implement lexer, parser, binder and script document object model in managed code for entire language scope. The product team is moving forward with a focus on expanding the language support scope.

I hope this information provides the background information at minimum why the target version was selected on SQL Server 2008 only.

Best regards,
Eric

Posted by Jeff Cox on 6/10/2008 at 2:37 PM

I would gladly take intelliSense support for SQL2k5 with the disclaimer that microsoft doesn't support it as it's not 100% accurate. It really did pretty well in the Feb CTP against 2005 databases.

Posted by pwhite99 on 6/10/2008 at 8:57 AM

Some times I just don't understand what Microsoft are thinking. They introduce a killer feature for CTP6 (Intellisense) which is well overdue and then remove it for 2005 Servers at RC0! Even those who don't like it (Erland!) can simply turn it off. For the next few years, the majority of our servers will stay on 2005. The majority of the users of SSMS are not DBAs - helpdesk and developers for example. All of these users (and our IT Director) were very impressed by the inclusion of Intellisense in CTP6 - in fact, outside the DBA camp, it has been the users' biggest draw to 2008. I really don't understand this decision at all. Whatever the limitations, even the limited Intellisense in CTP6 is better than I now have in RC0. I can't stress strongly enough how annoyed I am that managing T-SQL on our 2005 servers (i.e. all of them except the 2008 test cluster) has just become unnecessarily more irritating. If I could stand to waste another couple of hours on it and didn't need to evaluate RC0, I would uninstall the thing right now and go back to CTP6 until it expires. Wake up Microsoft! Some of us who normally defend you strenuously are very disappointed by this short-sighted and out-of-touch move. Rant ends!

Posted by adolf garlic on 6/10/2008 at 5:19 AM

The intellisense is crap anyway. Just buy sql prompt from red gate instead.

Posted by Mike C_1 on 6/8/2008 at 10:19 AM

Very important, especially for SQL 2005 since many shops will take time to upgrade to SQL 2008 and the requirements to support 2005 will continue.

Posted by WhitneyWeaver on 6/6/2008 at 5:41 AM

Erland - I appreciate your opinion here, it seems we have a different day to day though in terms of SQL versions. I'm just off a client that still was supporting SQL 2000 in their environment and I was connecting with SQL 2005 SSMS (and most recently SQL 2008 SSMS). There are a lot more shops on SQL 2000 than you would probably want to know about. ;)

I don't see this coming at the expense of some other feature, MORE code is necessary to turn off the downlevel support. I just want things to behave as they do in the CTP.

Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 6/6/2008 at 1:46 AM

My very own personal opinion is that there are far more important things that Microsoft can spend their
time on than making intellisense to work with older versions. Just consider today: how much to you use SQL 2005
tools to work with SQL 2000?

Of course, this is easy for me to say, as I about the first things I do when I have installed SQL 2008 is
to disable intellisense. I just can't stand it.

Posted by SQLSaran on 5/27/2008 at 11:57 AM

It is a very very important feature to have to increase productivity. We are still using SQL 2000, but I think it would be too much to demand for the Intellisense till 2000. I would like to see the intellisense working from SQL 2005. I wa expecting a SP to make it in 2005 SSMS. Please atleast allow a downward compatibitliy with SSMS 2008 for SQL 2005.

Posted by Jason Kohlhoff on 5/23/2008 at 11:02 AM

In my opinion, all of the management tool's major features should be backwards compatible with the previous release.

Question - What about support for SQL Server 2008 databases set to 90 Compatibility Level? It doesn't make much sense to say that Intellisense won't support 2005 given that you can limit a 2008 database to 2005 compatibility.

Does anyone know if SSMS Express will also support Intellisense?

Posted by gmail.graham on 5/23/2008 at 7:49 AM

Personally, I feel it would be more beneficial for the community to have this tool available for use against SQL Server 2005+ instances. I would rather see SQL Server 2008 delayed (and include IntelliSense) than have it earlier with fewer tools to work with.

Posted by Rafs on 5/21/2008 at 9:46 PM

Hugo Kornelis comments simply don't make sense!

Intellisense is a shortcut, a very useful one. You cannot blame it if the some programmer or DBA doesn't follow the warnings (if you can call someone who just doesn't open BOL a professional). This is simply underestimation of a valuable tool.

Posted by aaronbertrand on 5/21/2008 at 5:41 AM

JSolutions, SQL Server 2008 support is complete right now. We get SELECT. There is not going to be any more investment in resources here, so dropping 2005 support (which simply means updating the docs and adding a flag in the code) is not going to mean you are magically going to get better 2008 support. Further development of IntelliSense features will not occur until the next version.

Posted by Jason Stangroome on 5/20/2008 at 3:52 PM

Drop 2005 support if it means 2008 support could be more complete.

Posted by Ulrich Kraehenbuehl on 5/20/2008 at 10:36 AM

I'd really like to see it work for Sql 2005!

Posted by aaronbertrand on 5/20/2008 at 6:51 AM

Hugo: I think that is something they will forget about either 0 or 1 times. I certainly prefer working with the feature and its limitations over having the feature on when I connect to some instances and off when I connect to others.

MJSwart: your tactic will certainly work somewhat for system objects, but won't work for user objects that are only in your SQL Server 2005 instance. Even for system objects, you might find that you accidentally write scripts including DMVs (or DMV columns) that are available only in SQL Server 2008. Compatibility level won't help here either, I'm afraid.

Posted by Michael J. Swart on 5/20/2008 at 5:33 AM

I've already found intellisense to be super useful. Mostly I use it for the management views (which never seem to be less than 20 characters long)...

I expect that I'm going to find myself writing against 2008 and then switching connections last second before executing.

Please please consider supporting 2005 as early as possible.

Posted by Hugo Kornelis on 5/20/2008 at 1:02 AM

I disagree with the general opinion here.

History has proved that people place an unexplicable trust on what computers suggest. Intellisense won't be any different. An avereage developer, working in SSMS 2008 against a SQL 2005 database, will just happily accept anything suggested by IntelliSense. He won't bother to check BOL first for possible disclaimers. And even if this would be off by default but settable, with a warning when enabling this, developers will forget about the warning after some while.

And when (not if!) the time comes that a nasty bug is introduced by accepting an IntelliSense suggestion, which takes hours extra to debug because the developer just doesn't llook as hard into the parts that "Microsoft suggested", there will be no end to the shouting and yelling in Microsoft's general direction, and to the negative publicity.

As long as there is no time to make this feature work correctly against a 2005 instance, disabling is (IMO) the better choice.

Posted by Rafs on 5/19/2008 at 9:51 PM

It just don't make any sense to don't release intellisense backward compatible. Even because the feature isn't full in that release. The few they have finally done, they just don't support in the new releases...

This kind of small thing always added points to Microsoft. Looks like they're are stepping back with some decisions. It'll be truly sad if they don't support that feature in SSMS 2008.

Posted by Don R. Watters on 5/19/2008 at 5:30 PM

So many people on the SQL Server Dev Team have talked about this release being a "dot release", it just makes so little sense. It's kind of sad that since they can't meet deadlines that they have to cut this kind of stuff. Just like they cut intellisense and the XQuery tool in the last release. Pretty much anything not having to do with tools pretty much gets cut to save time, which is unfortunate, because that's what made SQL Server so intriguing to being with, when I switched from Oracle to SQl Server....it was because of the tools. Too bad, really.

Posted by aaronbertrand on 5/13/2008 at 3:24 PM

After reviewing the additional information, I agree... I wasn't aware that 2005 support was being dropped. Seeing as 2008 support isn't complete or perfect, I would much rather see partly broken 2005 support than no 2005 support at all. The 2005 can have a big asterisk next to it, and maybe it can be turned off via an option for those that really feel that the false positives etc. get in their way.

Posted by CJCraft.com on 5/9/2008 at 1:15 PM

This is important.

Posted by Spook De Jur on 5/7/2008 at 12:26 PM

I will be maintaining code in SQL 2005 and 2008 for the forseeable future, that is the way of the world not all our clients are going to switch right away, nor are all projects at a particular client going to covert from 2005 to 2008 (in fact some are on 2000). Having intellisense available all the time is a great time saver and very powerful tool. Please make it work downlevel.

Posted by Johan99 on 5/7/2008 at 10:51 AM

I also think it is important.

Posted by Sergey Barskiy on 5/7/2008 at 10:37 AM

I think it is important.

Posted by Microsoft on 5/7/2008 at 8:28 AM

Whitney,

Thank you for the feedback. As we discussed, we will monitor the customer rating and vote count on this thread to support a future decision about the backward support.

Best regards,
Eric Kang
Program Manager, Microsoft SQL Server

Posted by WhitneyWeaver on 5/7/2008 at 5:26 AM

Aaron - CTP6 is not doing a version check that will occur in the RTM. See my blog (http://blog.magenic.com/blogs/whitneyw/default.aspx) for the full story.

Posted by aaronbertrand on 5/6/2008 at 7:56 PM

I don't understand... I am currently using SSMS of Feb CTP against 2005 instances, and IntelliSense works as well as it is currently implemented. Did you see an announcement somewhere that stated that IntelliSense would later be shut off when connecting to downlevel servers? Could you share the source of this news?

Posted by Dan English on 5/5/2008 at 10:12 AM

Having this work for SQL 2005 would be very helpful and is kind of expected.

IntellliSense backward compatibility by WhitneyWeaver