Sage 100

New MAS 200 v4.5.6 install. Running as a service. System has shut down twice, the last one with this error in the log. WIN 8 server, 64 OS. Any thoughts on the error. Early in the troubleshooting phase........ Will offer up more details later in the weekend. Faulting application name: pvxwin32.EXE, version: 9.30.6.0, time stamp: 0x 4dd2c46d Faulting module name: unknown, version: 0.0.0.0, time stamp: 0x00000000 Exception code: 0xc0000005 Fault offset: 0x0b17fd24 Faulting process id: 0x728 Faulting application start time: 0x01ce312f959c75e3 Faulting application path: C:\Sage\MAS 200 Client\Version4\MAS90\HOME\pvxwin32.EXE Faulting module path: unknown Report Id: 433a5e3e-9d23-11e2-921e-00155d3c9b0a

Do you have SS-3003 implemented?

Data execution protection disabled for pvxwin32.exe?

Ss3003. Only ten users. Didn't think I needed it.

Data execution. What is that.

Try turning off Data execution prevention for pvxwin32.exe and see if that helps. To configure DEP settings Click Start, click Control Panel, and then double-click System. Click the Advanced tab. Then, under Performance, click Settings. Click the Data Execution Prevention tab. Click Turn on DEP for essential Windows programs and services only to select the OptIn policy. Click Turn on DEP for all programs and services except those I select to select the OptOut policy. If you selected the OptOut policy, click Add and add the applications that you do not want to use DEP with

http://dsdtips.com/how-do-you-resolve-mas90-or-mas200-force-close-errors-when-you-are-running-mas-on-a-terminal-server-on-a-win-2008-r2-64-bit-server/

Yikes. Thanks but did you know it is Saturday????

It is?

I have been dealing with dep for another client and had it all in my iPhone memory. What can I say!! ;)

The data execution prevention fixed this issue for a few different installs I've done recently. It also seemed like I had to grant more security that used to be the case. Instead of just being able to give full rights to a group of users, I had to specifically name each user or even make users members of the admin group (yikes). That could have been how security was set up in those instances though...