Sage 100

Job Cost, Work Order, MRP??? Sage has been pretty open that they have no plans to upgrade, so what are our options? Jim - just reading through Deb's bin location question and thought it was interesting that you've tried to get JobOps and ACS Multi-Bin together. I also spoke with Ron at ACS and Ryan at JobOps about this and as you mentioned, JobOps just doesn't seem interested. If JobOps wants to be the best long-term MFG replacement, they will need to interface with a multi-bin system or write their own into JobOps. Or maybe these Sage modules get thrown out there by Sage for the taking, like extended solutions? I was hoping to come back from Summit with some answers, but didn't learn anything, so I thought I'd throw this out to the group. If you'd like to vote for Sage to do something about this, here are the links on the Sage feedback site: Job Cost: https://www11.v1ideas.com/SageERP/MAS90and200/Idea/Detail/654 Payroll: https://www11.v1ideas.com/SageERP/MAS90and200/Idea/Detail/655 Work Order: https://www11.v1ideas.com/SageERP/MAS90and200/Idea/Detail/656 MRP: https://www11.v1ideas.com/SageERP/MAS90and200/Idea/Detail/657

I think they've proclaimed their upgrade as done. My guess is that Sage gives up the mfg area before putting resources into further module upgrades. They're already trying to figure out how to get everyone onto a new universal payroll (announced last year for SQL and not talked about much this year) and I bet they'd love that payroll to be one that generated recurring revenue -- aka a service.

If I lived in Chicago, I would vote twice, but sadly I voted many moons ago on these requests. Maybe Peter can advise on how to obtain residency.

What were the reasons given by JobOps for not working on their own multi-bin or at least teaming up with Chomps?

cost - basically having to rewrite a good deal of the program. I guess my actual question here, realizing that Sage will probably not do anything with these modules, is how do we pass this knowledge on to our customers and/or prospects appropriately? Without any clear substitutes, i don't know whether to just keep my mouth shut, play dumb and just repeat what Sage is saying, 'We don't have any plans...we don't know,"" or proactively try to get them to start looking at alternatives.

What were ACS's plans for their multi-bin being compatible with the SQL version, version 4.45 or 4.50, does anyone know?

I don't know the answer but I just emailed Ron at ACS to find out. Also, does anyone know the timeline for bringing current MAS200 clients over to the SQL platform? Is that still scheduled for the fall?

Yes 4.5 has a utility to convert ProvideX to SQL. You can convert old SQL to new SQL, but it's a little more involved.

Does anyone have any newer clients using MAS200 SQL? My understanding is that Sage is trying to keep this quiet, but that there are only like 4 installations of MAS200 SQL out there today.

We have two customers using MAS 200 SQL 4.45. One was a brand new install for a start-up company, hence no data conversion. The other one was a small install previously using MAS 200 SQL 3.7x that we converted using a beta version of the Sage conversion utilities.

Feedback - it sounds like you're a fan?

I like the new MAS 200 SQL much better than the old one. I like having the power of SQL and the power of the business framework. Crystal Reports are like lightening compared to the ProvideX ODBC.

Dawn - here is the response from ACS about Multi-Bin and SQL: Yes We are providing 4.45 in a week or two and will of course be ready for 4.5 quickly. Thank you Ron Chompf, CPA

I think John Shaver has a SQL that he is working on too. The 4 installs number seems low just based on our group being able to count a total of 3.

Shaver's was definitely one of the first.

I think I can live with not upgrading these module to business framework. I think they at least need to make them work in a SQL environment. These are basically the same modules that work in the 3.7x SQL. I would really like to know is it a true technical issue(which could be resolved) or just a marketing stunt to push users of these modules that want SQL to go elsewhere.

Dawn, to say that moving from 3.74 to 4.45 is ""a little more involved"" is quite an understatement! That being said, yes we have moved one of our customers from 3.74 to 4.45. They are not using it in a production environment yet since we have quite a few custom forms and reports to finish but all of the data successfully moved from 3.74. Core, distribution and BM. We had to purge quite a bit of historical data in 3.74 to get them under the 2GB limit. Moved from 3.74 to 3.71 (using the DSD utility) then to 4.4 and 4.45. The Sage utilities leave a lot to be desired. Always great to have Alnoor to fix the wonderful Sage apps!

Well, ours was very ""light"" -- GL, AR, AP, Bank Rec. No custom reports, no UDFs. It was an easy one to get our feet wet on.