Sage 100

We are getting ready to do a new install of MAS 200 and the client is trying to host MAS 200 on an off-site server but still install the clients locall on their machines. I'm not a network guru and am trying to determine if this this is really the best way to go. This would be over a WAN but will MAS 200 still run at a usable speed? Would it be better to recommend putting the clients in the hosted environment as well?

NOOOOOOOOOOO The client should definitely be in the hosted environment on a separate server. I hope they are not doing it at GO Daddy or a generic hosting company either....We get a migration every month or so from those places.

Our customers that are hosted use either a Remote Desktop Connection to connect to the MAS server or, if they are running Citrix, they publish MAS. That way it appears to the user that they are running the client locally.

I had the same situation. Even setup the ODBC C/S. Short respnse is that they went to hosting the clients as well. MAS is not a web app. Myron Stevenson Clearis Consulting, Inc. Voice: 218.525.6720 Mobile: 218.391.5888 Fax: 866.550.9880

Horrible way to go!

Thanks for the immediate feedback, that's what i was afraid to hear. They are going through a hosting company, but the company has no experience with MAS. It sounds like i need to look into a Citrix enviornemnt. The clien'ts biggest concern is that they want MAS to appear to run locally.

They will also need MS office on the TS for excel and word integration to work. We host MAS 200 for $100 per user or less ALL INCLUSIVE (office licenses, backup, AV, etc.) in a Citrix private cloud environment.

I'd definitely recommend going with Gary's firm. The biggest problem with hosting companies that don't know MAS is that they see nothing wrong with changing the operating environment, installing SQL service packs, etc without bothering to tell you a thing. At least until the customer calls and says MAS isn't working. Then the hosting company gets to tell you what a piece of crap MAS is since the changes they made didn't cause any problems with Exchange, SQL Server, Sharepoint, blah, blah.

I would echo all of the above comments - if this goes forward you'll be setup for a period of time where all the customer and the hosting company do is complain and bad mouth MAS 90/200. The rationale is always ""well we could run [pick unrelated app] and [pick some accounting system you never hear of] this way - MAS90 sucks"" BTDT.

I appreciate all of the feedback everyone - this is exactly what I needed to know. I'm recommending to our client that they go another direction

About a year ago I got an email from one of our customer's hosting company that the hosting folks were planning on a MAS 90 server move over the weekend and they didn't really think I needed to know but decided to tell me, just in case. I asked if they were taking responsibility for MAS not working when everyone tries to get back in on Monday. And, drum roll please, of course they weren't. And, of course, they had been telling the customer that moving to a new server is no big deal and they do it all the time (except, they had never done it with MAS).

Boy, I am late to the GAME on this. but totally agree that Terminal Server or Citrix hosted next to the MAS200 server is the way to go!! MAS200 does not have a very good a thin client.

Bad idea. Use terminal server

A MAS customer of mine moved all their servers to a hosted environment a last summer. The host did not provision enough resources, so in December they created two more virtual servers, and asked me to install the MAS workstation on them. They did not tell me that they planned to deactivate the original server, so these workstation setups are pointed at the original server. Over a weekend, hosting company copies the MAS 90 folder from one server to another. Monday morning people start working on the new servers, but are having printer and email issues which the company is unable to solve, so they decide to go back to the original server, which had been left running but no one had logged into. Tuesday morning I get a call that the MAS users are wondering where their work from Monday is. After much checking on both servers, the IT genius admits that Monday evening as part of the ""going back"" he copied the MAS 90 folder from the new server to the old server. The kickoff meeting for hosting with Gary's company is Friday morning.

We have a large client (Disney) that due to security issues would not even consider external hosting. However, they did setup the application server and terminal server at their Texas Headquarters for use primarily by their Finance/Accounting Department in New York in a WAN environment. Bad idea - report printing slowed to a crawl and reports took 5-10 minutes to print(even with client/server ODBC setup). We worked with their IT and tried every trick in the book to speed up printing (thin print, compression, etc.) but nothing helped. They finally just moved the servers to the NY office. I still worry about Sage MAS 200 printing speed issues over a hosted or WAN environment since we have other clients that have this setup and report problems during heavy use.

Why not terminal server? Perfect answer

I pretty much tell customers that if they're looking this way that it's Terminal Server or we're not responsible for slow downs. Usually it's the IT department that is ""guaranteeing"" no problems --- and as John Shaver points out the IT department rarely has any experience with MAS90 and when things fall apart the IT department defense is ""mas90 sucks"".