General Consultant Discussion

Hi everyone 

Here is the Agenda for the Roundtable this month. Don't forget to get registered!   We will not be recording this meeting.  Thanks! 

• [5 minutes] Product Roadmap – Heather
• [5 minutes] TLS Update – Heather
• [10 minutes] Simplification Project – Mike
• [10 minutes] Demo - Elliott
• [2-3 minutes] Payroll Release Reminder – John
• [15 minutes]  Sage Network App Demo – Grace Rivers

Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version? 

My practice so far has been:

1. Same server upgrade as existing Sage 100 server: always install the new version as 32-bit (Standard / Advanced / Premium... always).
   • Potentially swap to 64-bit later, but since we almost always install the new version early (many days), we can't risk the new version breaking the old version. 
     • Of course changing to 64-bit later is more work... re-create the service, make sure the workstation updates happen with admin access, update external shortcuts / processes (like batch files triggering VI jobs on a schedule...).
   • (Note: suggestions like "try 64-bit and change to 32-bit if you have problems" are basically treating our customers as guinea pigs, which we don't want to do.  Our services involve best efforts to minimize our mutual client's pain with such things, and experimenting on their Live systems is not something I will ever agree with.  Problems with avoidable causes make everyone look bad).
2. New server upgrade:
   • If there are no enhancements, go with 64-bit.
   • If there are enhancements, check with the developers as to whether their software has been verified as functional with 64-bit Sage 100.

My question here mainly pertains to scenario 1 above.

Hi everyone 

Here is the Agenda for the Roundtable this month. Don't forget to get registered!   We will not be recording this meeting.  Thanks! 

• [5 minutes] Product Roadmap – Heather
• [5 minutes] TLS Update – Heather
• [10 minutes] Simplification Project – Mike
• [10 minutes] Demo - Elliott
• [2-3 minutes] Payroll Release Reminder – John
• [15 minutes]  Sage Network App Demo – Grace Rivers

Hi everyone 

Here is the Agenda for the Roundtable this month. Don't forget to get registered!   We will not be recording this meeting.  Thanks! 

• [5 minutes] Product Roadmap – Heather
• [5 minutes] TLS Update – Heather
• [10 minutes] Simplification Project – Mike
• [10 minutes] Demo - Elliott
• [2-3 minutes] Payroll Release Reminder – John
• [15 minutes]  Sage Network App Demo – Grace Rivers

It would be nice to see Sage (since they want customers to be on multiple Sage products) to make sure that all Crystal version changes happen in sync - i.e. all Sage 20xx products are all using Crystal yy

You mean like actually follow the meaning of ONE SAGE?

I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

I mean, hello, not only do we run wksetup but there's a workstation sync that happens. Shouldn't ONE of those two operations be able to check on the paperless? If not, maybe it's time to return AMYUNI to the 1990s and get a new paperless routing.

When a customer has elected not to use paperless and calls out of the blue to have it enabled - they are confused ( as they should be ) as to why this has to be a project instead of just creating a folder, enable paperless office and supply Sage with a UNC path to the paperless folder.

And let me assure you - enabling a flagship feature like paperless is indeed a project for which you likely will receive follow-up calls.

Why? 

1. 99% of the time the customer isn't ready with anything to post ( ie test  paperless ) so now it's a game of "let's let the error -30, error -41, etc ) come rolling in at the most random time ( usually when you as the consultant have just sat down to a two hour customer meeting )
2. There's no advance method that I've found to reliably test the paperless connection short of actually trying to post a transaction. Maybe the "test PDF" button on the separate pl_advancedoptions_ui is the answer -- which also means that workstation setup is now at least three separate installs ( wksetup, workstation sync, pl_advancedoptions_ui)
3. The installation/reinstallation of paperless drivers require local admin - which the customer doesn't grant the users due to well placed security fears
4. We are not always able to personally oversee every workstation setup ( did it get run "as administrator"?) so we are at the mercy of IT or accounting staff following our instructions ( yes, we highlight "ALWAYS RUN AS ADMINISTRATOR")
   
   
   

By now this should be a stable feature. Unfortunately it's much harder to get implemented than it really should be.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

It's a fabulous addition.  Would it be greedy to ask for something similar in System Files (User Maintenance, Role Maintenance, Company Maintenance, Installed Software, etc.)?  Right @Tina Leonard ?

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

Madeline, yes I have a few customers asking for a log of system changes and user/role changes. The activity log captures that something has been done, but it's very generic. If system changes can't be captured, then maybe only role and user maintenance edits could?

It's a fabulous addition.  Would it be greedy to ask for something similar in System Files (User Maintenance, Role Maintenance, Company Maintenance, Installed Software, etc.)?  Right @Tina Leonard ?

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

The Quick Wins were all pretty impressive, IMHO.  I've had numerous clients ask for the ability to enter vendor Tax ID info without being setup for 1099s, and several people have had scripting done to get the SO/PS print flags automatically set on backorders.  The Received status in PO is a definitely improvement - explaining that "Backorder" doesn't really always mean "Backorder" gets old.  AND I just watched a client struggle with the ALE retain search value thing during a training session yesterday.  Good stuff all around.

Madeline, yes I have a few customers asking for a log of system changes and user/role changes. The activity log captures that something has been done, but it's very generic. If system changes can't be captured, then maybe only role and user maintenance edits could?

It's a fabulous addition.  Would it be greedy to ask for something similar in System Files (User Maintenance, Role Maintenance, Company Maintenance, Installed Software, etc.)?  Right @Tina Leonard ?

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

I think Quick Wins is a questionable title for Sage to use for these items. 

Who cares if they're quick or not? It's all about how well received they are by the customer. Specifying them as "quick" makes it seem like low effort. I realize Sage has used this wording for many years.

I found it weird that the new Sage PM didn't make any introductions, but people have probably met her elsewhere, and it is just a me thing. 

Overall, it felt like Sage was happy to get out without any challenging questions. Sage did not seem exceptionally well prepared about what type of features all the bolt-on acquisitions (futurli, inventory) would bring to the table or when. 

If it were me, I would have left those undecideds off the roadmap and created another column labeled "under consideration." I would have put what Sage marked as quick wins onto the roadmap since those seemed like they would make it into the product.  

What I liked about the enhancements for 2014 is that many of them are usable by all Sage 100 users. I'm sure Sage is just as happy to escape another all-manufacturing type release.

If I were CIMcloud, I'd wonder what I'm paying Sage for as an endorsed partner. Based on the description of Sage Network and CIMcloud, Sage didn't have a good explanation of what the differences were. I doubt that Sage Network ( aka Lockstep, aka AR Automation ) will be "free," as was quickly stated. I expect to see more of a free-to-integrate ( ala credit cards ), but you'll be paying a transaction fee to use it. And I hate to be a Debbie Downer but my guess is with all these transaction-focused add-ons, the VAR is going to make not much money which means you MUST generate new methods of billing for these ( I've already decided anyone NOT on my support plan is getting a surcharge if I'm pulled into the billing process.

Sage went by the TLS issue VERY quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if further deferrals happened. By my quick math, about 5% of what Sage claims as their active Sage 100 installed base is not TLS compliant ( see September 2023 Sage N America Value Proposition in the partner portal for info on what Sage says their Sage 100 active paid base is).

I was unsure why Sage didn't better describe the Aatrix fix before this meeting  ( which appears to have been available since 11/17/23). Couldn't they have sent some memo that explained only v2020.x needed the fix, and here's where to get it. All this time, I've erroneously assumed that the release was still awaiting release and would apply to more Sage 100 versions. I'm just not paying as close attention as most of you.  I continue to believe Sage has problems with their KB ( both the technology and the people who write the articles ), so perhaps it's more of an every person for themselves inside the Sage small business division.

The Quick Wins were all pretty impressive, IMHO.  I've had numerous clients ask for the ability to enter vendor Tax ID info without being setup for 1099s, and several people have had scripting done to get the SO/PS print flags automatically set on backorders.  The Received status in PO is a definitely improvement - explaining that "Backorder" doesn't really always mean "Backorder" gets old.  AND I just watched a client struggle with the ALE retain search value thing during a training session yesterday.  Good stuff all around.

Madeline, yes I have a few customers asking for a log of system changes and user/role changes. The activity log captures that something has been done, but it's very generic. If system changes can't be captured, then maybe only role and user maintenance edits could?

It's a fabulous addition.  Would it be greedy to ask for something similar in System Files (User Maintenance, Role Maintenance, Company Maintenance, Installed Software, etc.)?  Right @Tina Leonard ?

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

AR Automation is definitely not free.  I sat in on a demo two weeks ago for a customer that is interested in it.  It is a nice product that proposes to increase cash flow using several features: dashboards, alerts, payment portals, integration with credit card software etc.  It is cloud based and "integrates" with many of the ERP systems, not just Sage 100.  As you know, "integrates" is a vague term and in the case of Sage 100 means "Visual Integrator".  I believe the price was $17K per year for 2 users.  That doesn't include training and implementation which is separate and provided by Sage aka Lockstep (I believe).  in this case the AR Automation subscription price is more than the annual subscription price of Sage 100.

I think Quick Wins is a questionable title for Sage to use for these items. 

Who cares if they're quick or not? It's all about how well received they are by the customer. Specifying them as "quick" makes it seem like low effort. I realize Sage has used this wording for many years.

I found it weird that the new Sage PM didn't make any introductions, but people have probably met her elsewhere, and it is just a me thing. 

Overall, it felt like Sage was happy to get out without any challenging questions. Sage did not seem exceptionally well prepared about what type of features all the bolt-on acquisitions (futurli, inventory) would bring to the table or when. 

If it were me, I would have left those undecideds off the roadmap and created another column labeled "under consideration." I would have put what Sage marked as quick wins onto the roadmap since those seemed like they would make it into the product.  

What I liked about the enhancements for 2014 is that many of them are usable by all Sage 100 users. I'm sure Sage is just as happy to escape another all-manufacturing type release.

If I were CIMcloud, I'd wonder what I'm paying Sage for as an endorsed partner. Based on the description of Sage Network and CIMcloud, Sage didn't have a good explanation of what the differences were. I doubt that Sage Network ( aka Lockstep, aka AR Automation ) will be "free," as was quickly stated. I expect to see more of a free-to-integrate ( ala credit cards ), but you'll be paying a transaction fee to use it. And I hate to be a Debbie Downer but my guess is with all these transaction-focused add-ons, the VAR is going to make not much money which means you MUST generate new methods of billing for these ( I've already decided anyone NOT on my support plan is getting a surcharge if I'm pulled into the billing process.

Sage went by the TLS issue VERY quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if further deferrals happened. By my quick math, about 5% of what Sage claims as their active Sage 100 installed base is not TLS compliant ( see September 2023 Sage N America Value Proposition in the partner portal for info on what Sage says their Sage 100 active paid base is).

I was unsure why Sage didn't better describe the Aatrix fix before this meeting  ( which appears to have been available since 11/17/23). Couldn't they have sent some memo that explained only v2020.x needed the fix, and here's where to get it. All this time, I've erroneously assumed that the release was still awaiting release and would apply to more Sage 100 versions. I'm just not paying as close attention as most of you.  I continue to believe Sage has problems with their KB ( both the technology and the people who write the articles ), so perhaps it's more of an every person for themselves inside the Sage small business division.

The Quick Wins were all pretty impressive, IMHO.  I've had numerous clients ask for the ability to enter vendor Tax ID info without being setup for 1099s, and several people have had scripting done to get the SO/PS print flags automatically set on backorders.  The Received status in PO is a definitely improvement - explaining that "Backorder" doesn't really always mean "Backorder" gets old.  AND I just watched a client struggle with the ALE retain search value thing during a training session yesterday.  Good stuff all around.

Madeline, yes I have a few customers asking for a log of system changes and user/role changes. The activity log captures that something has been done, but it's very generic. If system changes can't be captured, then maybe only role and user maintenance edits could?

It's a fabulous addition.  Would it be greedy to ask for something similar in System Files (User Maintenance, Role Maintenance, Company Maintenance, Installed Software, etc.)?  Right @Tina Leonard ?

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

I think Quick Wins is a questionable title for Sage to use for these items. 

Who cares if they're quick or not? It's all about how well received they are by the customer. Specifying them as "quick" makes it seem like low effort. I realize Sage has used this wording for many years.

I found it weird that the new Sage PM didn't make any introductions, but people have probably met her elsewhere, and it is just a me thing. 

Overall, it felt like Sage was happy to get out without any challenging questions. Sage did not seem exceptionally well prepared about what type of features all the bolt-on acquisitions (futurli, inventory) would bring to the table or when. 

If it were me, I would have left those undecideds off the roadmap and created another column labeled "under consideration." I would have put what Sage marked as quick wins onto the roadmap since those seemed like they would make it into the product.  

What I liked about the enhancements for 2014 is that many of them are usable by all Sage 100 users. I'm sure Sage is just as happy to escape another all-manufacturing type release.

If I were CIMcloud, I'd wonder what I'm paying Sage for as an endorsed partner. Based on the description of Sage Network and CIMcloud, Sage didn't have a good explanation of what the differences were. I doubt that Sage Network ( aka Lockstep, aka AR Automation ) will be "free," as was quickly stated. I expect to see more of a free-to-integrate ( ala credit cards ), but you'll be paying a transaction fee to use it. And I hate to be a Debbie Downer but my guess is with all these transaction-focused add-ons, the VAR is going to make not much money which means you MUST generate new methods of billing for these ( I've already decided anyone NOT on my support plan is getting a surcharge if I'm pulled into the billing process.

Sage went by the TLS issue VERY quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if further deferrals happened. By my quick math, about 5% of what Sage claims as their active Sage 100 installed base is not TLS compliant ( see September 2023 Sage N America Value Proposition in the partner portal for info on what Sage says their Sage 100 active paid base is).

I was unsure why Sage didn't better describe the Aatrix fix before this meeting  ( which appears to have been available since 11/17/23). Couldn't they have sent some memo that explained only v2020.x needed the fix, and here's where to get it. All this time, I've erroneously assumed that the release was still awaiting release and would apply to more Sage 100 versions. I'm just not paying as close attention as most of you.  I continue to believe Sage has problems with their KB ( both the technology and the people who write the articles ), so perhaps it's more of an every person for themselves inside the Sage small business division.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 12-01-2023 07:42
From: Beth Bowers
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

The Quick Wins were all pretty impressive, IMHO.  I've had numerous clients ask for the ability to enter vendor Tax ID info without being setup for 1099s, and several people have had scripting done to get the SO/PS print flags automatically set on backorders.  The Received status in PO is a definitely improvement - explaining that "Backorder" doesn't really always mean "Backorder" gets old.  AND I just watched a client struggle with the ALE retain search value thing during a training session yesterday.  Good stuff all around.

------------------------------
Beth Bowers
(269) 358-0989


Original Message:
Sent: 11-30-2023 19:25
From: Tina Meacham
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

Madeline, yes I have a few customers asking for a log of system changes and user/role changes. The activity log captures that something has been done, but it's very generic. If system changes can't be captured, then maybe only role and user maintenance edits could?

------------------------------
Tina Meacham
RKL eSolutions, LLC


Original Message:
Sent: 11-30-2023 19:13
From: Madeline Stefanou
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

It's a fabulous addition.  Would it be greedy to ask for something similar in System Files (User Maintenance, Role Maintenance, Company Maintenance, Installed Software, etc.)?  Right @Tina Leonard ?

------------------------------
Madeline Stefanou
RKL eSolutions, LLC


Original Message:
Sent: 11-30-2023 18:41
From: Kevin Moyes
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

------------------------------
Kevin Moyes
Technical Systems Analyst
Munjal White Consulting Co.
Toronto ON


Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2023 18:12
From: Jeff Schwenk
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

------------------------------
Jeff Schwenk
Bottomline Software, Inc.
(540) 221-4444


Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2023 11:13
From: Phil McIntosh
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

------------------------------
Phil McIntosh
President
Friendly Systems, Inc.


Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2023 10:33
From: Madeline Stefanou
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

------------------------------
Madeline Stefanou
RKL eSolutions, LLC


Original Message:
Sent: 11-28-2023 10:14
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

It should include SO & PO changes.  I often get "who changed the price on this order?"

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

It should include SO & PO changes.  I often get "who changed the price on this order?"

I'm not sure how free I am to post here about the development webinar content, but I have to say that the pending Audit log changes for v2024 do look like a significant step forwards.

Regarding the "Create a log" post of @Wayne Schulz, @Alnoor Cassim created scripting to do that!  Fields were added to the AP ACH table for date, time and changed by information.   Changes were written to the activity log table.  The client did not have any alert software, so we did not email anyone.  Cleint was very pleased with the result.

BTW getting a signature is not a good way to think you have protected yourself.  Real estate transaction docs are pubic records, so anyone who ever bought property has their signature available for public consumption...

I have a Connecticut client that experienced the same thing in the last 18 months.  In their case, it was an inside job.  The VP of Sales set up some fraudulent email accounts and had a "few" ACH Accounts established to receive Pre-Payments for overseas Purchase Orders.  It was a "mess" and I believe accounted for a $250K Loss. It is a 'big deal' for everyone; yet some AP Departments treat it so casually.  I'm in the middle of writing a "blog post" about this topic.

I just read this story about how a local company was defrauded out of about $160,000 because a third-party emailed asking for the account number to change for future ACH payments: 

According to the arrest warrant affidavit, authorities in March began investigating a fraud complaint after a representative from Farmington-based Trumpf, Inc. said the manufacturing company's accounts payable department had received an email in January from Bertling Logistics requesting that its bank account information be changed. Bertling is a shipping and logistics company that regularly does business with Trumpf, the affidavit said.

Representatives from Trumpf at the time of the email did not realize that it was fraudulent and, following two wire transfers in February - one for about $75,000 and another for about $88,000 - using the bank information provided in the email, reported a loss of about $163,000, according to the affidavit.

1. Create a log of who made changes
2. Email alert that changes were made
3. Possibly require two people to make the change
4. Email the company contact on file using Paperless Office that the change was just made and require verification before it goes final 

I can see this becoming a bigger issue in the future

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

I have this happen even when it is me installing, running As Admin

------------------------------
Beth Bowers
(269) 358-0989
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 16:38
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 16:29
From: Beth Bowers
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

------------------------------
Beth Bowers
(269) 358-0989


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 13:24
From: Anne Sawyer
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

------------------------------
Anne Sawyer
Executive Director
90 Minds Inc.
Sunset Beach CA

In additional to running workstation install as admin, I always turn of user access control (UAC) then turn it back on after the setup is complete.  @Wayne Schulz and @Beth Bowers Do you also disable UAC prior to workstation setup?  I wonder if having UAC enabled would cause the installation of the Amyuni driver to fail. 

I have this happen even when it is me installing, running As Admin

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

I'll have to pay closer attention whether there is a UAC pop up, or not.  You would think running it as Admin during workstation setup would be like running manually from Sage 100...

In additional to running workstation install as admin, I always turn of user access control (UAC) then turn it back on after the setup is complete.  @Wayne Schulz and @Beth Bowers Do you also disable UAC prior to workstation setup?  I wonder if having UAC enabled would cause the installation of the Amyuni driver to fail. 

I have this happen even when it is me installing, running As Admin

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

I don't turn of UAC when I do them (when I am an admin).  I have decided that I'm going to instruct IT, who typically do the workstation setups to run the utility and perform the Regit, for good measure.  My last two upgrades, every workstation has required the utility. It's the lovely Error -41..

------------------------------
Barbara Goldstein
Sr. Consultant
DSD Business Systems
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 17:11
From: Beth Bowers
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

I'll have to pay closer attention whether there is a UAC pop up, or not.  You would think running it as Admin during workstation setup would be like running manually from Sage 100...

------------------------------
Beth Bowers
(269) 358-0989


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 17:05
From: Doug Higgs
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

In additional to running workstation install as admin, I always turn of user access control (UAC) then turn it back on after the setup is complete.  @Wayne Schulz and @Beth Bowers Do you also disable UAC prior to workstation setup?  I wonder if having UAC enabled would cause the installation of the Amyuni driver to fail. 

------------------------------
Doug Higgs
Midwest Commerce Solutions, Inc
(312) 315-0960
Chauffeur, Chef, and Personal Assistant to Sprinkles


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 16:45
From: Beth Bowers
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

I have this happen even when it is me installing, running As Admin

------------------------------
Beth Bowers
(269) 358-0989


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 16:38
From: Wayne Schulz
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

------------------------------
Wayne Schulz
wayne@s-consult.com
Schulz Consulting
(860) 516-8990
Moodus, CT


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 16:29
From: Beth Bowers
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

------------------------------
Beth Bowers
(269) 358-0989


Original Message:
Sent: 12-08-2023 13:24
From: Anne Sawyer
Subject: Sage Development Roundtable new date! 11/30/2023

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

------------------------------
Anne Sawyer
Executive Director
90 Minds Inc.
Sunset Beach CA

I don't turn of UAC when I do them (when I am an admin).  I have decided that I'm going to instruct IT, who typically do the workstation setups to run the utility and perform the Regit, for good measure.  My last two upgrades, every workstation has required the utility. It's the lovely Error -41..

I'll have to pay closer attention whether there is a UAC pop up, or not.  You would think running it as Admin during workstation setup would be like running manually from Sage 100...

In additional to running workstation install as admin, I always turn of user access control (UAC) then turn it back on after the setup is complete.  @Wayne Schulz and @Beth Bowers Do you also disable UAC prior to workstation setup?  I wonder if having UAC enabled would cause the installation of the Amyuni driver to fail. 

I have this happen even when it is me installing, running As Admin

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

I'll have to pay closer attention whether there is a UAC pop up, or not.  You would think running it as Admin during workstation setup would be like running manually from Sage 100...

In additional to running workstation install as admin, I always turn of user access control (UAC) then turn it back on after the setup is complete.  @Wayne Schulz and @Beth Bowers Do you also disable UAC prior to workstation setup?  I wonder if having UAC enabled would cause the installation of the Amyuni driver to fail. 

I have this happen even when it is me installing, running As Admin

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.

....and maybe not completely fail... just partially fail, like not writing some or all of the registry entries.  I'm not even sure if the UAC pop up would occur when UAC is enabled. 

I'll have to pay closer attention whether there is a UAC pop up, or not.  You would think running it as Admin during workstation setup would be like running manually from Sage 100...

In additional to running workstation install as admin, I always turn of user access control (UAC) then turn it back on after the setup is complete.  @Wayne Schulz and @Beth Bowers Do you also disable UAC prior to workstation setup?  I wonder if having UAC enabled would cause the installation of the Amyuni driver to fail. 

I have this happen even when it is me installing, running As Admin

Yes, I find the paperless drivers problematic. I can't tell if it's because the person doing the workstation setup ( IT ) isn't running as an administrator or if something else is at play.  It's increasingly rare for any user to be a local administrator. I think that in some cases, IT rolls up to the workstation and runs the wksetup as the user instead of "as administrator." 

I've always felt that Sage didn't detect when the install routine was being run by someone who didn't have adequate rights. And in some cases it seemed like Sage skips anything it can't install without warning. That's my theory ( probably wrong) about what may happen with paperless.

I can say re the Paperless install thing - on almost every 2023 install I have, I have to STILL run PL_AdvancedOptions_UI after the initial workstation install or Paperless fails.

Hi everyone - I have some updates to your outstanding questions from the Sage Roundtable: 

• Can we get clear technical guidance on whether installing 64-bit Sage 100 (for an upgrade project) on a server running 32-bit Sage 100 (pre-upgrade version) will break the 32-bit version?

Installing 64-bit Sage 100 on a system that already has 32-bit will break the existing 32-bit installation, because several components share the same name and are overwritten by the 64-bit version.  So, installing the 64-bit components will interfere with the 32-bit install.  There is an article on converting to 64-bit in the Sage 100 Upgrade guide.  [Converting to 64-bit Version of Sage 100 – Page 70]

• I would like to hear from Sage what their position is with eBiz Charge.

Sage has dissolved all relationships with eBiz Charge and they are not permitted to use our development resources or access our source code. It's unclear if/how they plan on maintaining compatibility with new versions of Sage 100.

• I'm sure it's just me and my crazy customers. The ability to automatically update daily transaction register has been 100% a no-go for any existing customer.

It sounds like this may be an enhancement request to move the auto update of the DTR to a system or user based option instead of a role?  Anne, could we get more information?

• I'm probably light years beyond the group however I will share that it would be incredibly (incredibly) useful if there was some type of double check during one of the myriad of workstation setups to ensure that paperless office drivers were installed and correctly functioning.

Anne, we would like to get more information if we could.  The drivers install with every workstation, so more detail would be helpful.

** Also, Anne, I heard that there may be confusion to the Sage 100 2024 release being 64-bit only.  This is not the case, the change we made for the 2024 release was that the installer will default to 64-bit (if only a 64-bit operating system), but during installation this can be changed to install 32-bit if desired.