basing your development soley on what Microsoft is doing is not always a good thing = Microsoft makes mistakes - Vista for example. However we are talking about DNN which is not a microsoft product - there are still a lot of hosting companies out there that are still using sql 2000 and there will be a lot for a long time no matter if Microsoft stops support or not

Why restrict the product only to the latest output of Microsoft -  and stop the product runing on a large section of the Hosting companies. DNN is backward compatiable in a lot more ways then you might think - why restict the modules.

At best make it clear that if a person is running on a hosting company using sql2000 then your product will not work.

I'd like to post as a developer who finds it a pain to support sql2000 sometimes.  It's pretty easy to say why : because there are features in the newer versions that make it easier to write better code.  It also means you have to maintain several database installations to test compatibility with, which creates longer test cycles and increases the chances of introducing a bug.

In some cases I've had to write separate scripts to support sql 2000 installs for people.  These scripts nearly always run slower because you have to work around missing features.  Sql Server 2000 is nearly 10 years old now, and in software terms that is very old, and it is now 3 versions behind.  At some point I would like to stop supporting sql 2000, but at the moment, every time I accidentally introduce an incompatilbity, a lot of customers let me know.   This tells me the market still has a lot of old installations.    I have a friend who is a Sql Server DBA, and he is still maintaining some sql server 7 databases - it's not always easy (or fun) to upgrade.

SQL Server 2000 is hardly a legacy piece of software. There are more installations of it than SQL Server 2005. That's based on the companies I work for. SQL Server is an expensive product and companies do not upgrade it quicky, specially when the software works just fine.  SQL as a language hasn't changed much. Relational databases haven't changed either. They add incremental features but the basic operations are still the same. Inserts, deletes, updates, selects, stored procedures and triggers all work the same way. SQL Server 6.5 is legacy.. not 2000.

By the same token then no web developer should support IE6. It's legacy software according to your view. IE8 is coming out soon. But no web developer wants to ignore IE6's market  segment. It is still big. Personally I want IE6 to go away but we live in a real work where we need to support current customers. IE6 users wont upgrade if they have no compelling reason even if MS doesn't support it anymore. They don't care what MS does about IE 6. As long as the web sites they visit work fine, they will keep using IE6. Legacy software or not.

I develop software and I am not seeing anything that's available in SQL Server 2005 which I can't live without and which SQL Server 2000 can't do in some fashion. 2005 makes life easier but I would still not ignore 2000 as a revenue source.

I visited the module vendor's site which produces a module which doesn't work on 2000 and there's nothing about which version of databases it supports.

Even dotnetnuke.com doesn't mention which versions of SQL Server it supports. Unless it's buried somewhere on the site. bad.. bad.