mapping with exports/imports does not save properly

[p15650]

In act 6, exports would allow you to save a map of your exported fields to reload anytime you would export a contact [and the map would become default after use so that you did not have to load it everytime unless you would change the map].

In 2007, when you save a map and reload it in the export to txt feature, the map that you save mysteriously changes and adds additional fields; I can not believe this is the expected behaviour [why would someone save a map and come back to reload it but get a completely different map!!!]

Is this being experienced by Anyone else; since all i am trying to do is export a few fields [and must keep the order specific], i would think 2007 should have the same functionality of 6 which did it with no problems? Is there a trick somewhere to make this work?

thnx

 

[GLComputing]

What extra fields ar being added?

Regards,
Mike Lazarus
ACT! Evangelist
GL Computing, Aust

http://www.GLComputing.com.au

 

[p15650]

I tried saving a map on a brand new database with one contact only to make sure its not all the additional fields/field name changes causing the problem.

Even in a new database, when you export to a text file and move the export field order and save the map of the new export field order, when reloading the map, the order is all messed up again as if the map does not saave the order of the fields.

thnx

 

[GLComputing]

So, it's not changing/adding fields, as per your original message, just changing the order?

Regards,
Mike Lazarus
ACT! Evangelist
GL Computing, Aust

http://www.GLComputing.com.au

 

[p15650]

I just ran a test with an new database; tried exporting [have not changed any of the fields] a text file; then removed all contact fields in the map and inserted 6 fields [first name, last name, city state, country and spouse]; then save the map and reload it: now you have [city, county, state, first name and last name, spouse]; so it actually changes the order which makes no sense whatsoever [why would i save a map if its going to change the order?]

I think i thought is was adding fields before becasue i had a large number of changed field and my fields would not show up as i had ordered them so it looked like it was adding fields; it seem to just change the order [to sometype of alphabetic/ maybe field id number method]; thnx

 

[GLComputing]

I guess no one has noticed this is most things you want to import to will read the field names and don't care about the order.

What are you trying to send the data to?

Regards,
Mike Lazarus
ACT! Evangelist
GL Computing, Aust

http://www.GLComputing.com.au

 

[p15650]

I had a program setup with act 6 that took the text file, parsed it so that it could be imported into another program. so, it was a serious pain to change the order that the parser works; but, i spent 3 hours doing it today since it seemed like ACT doesn't have its act together on this one.

The interesting thing is that the text file created by act 2007 is not a standard file since my parser couldn't read it. I had to pipe it throught cmd.exe type command to resave a standard text file for my parser to read.

Is it my impression or have they really dropped the ball on the newer versions of act vs. version 6.0?

Also, the new version doesn't even load up on a couple of my networked computers with pentium 4 hyperthreading and 1 gig of ram [its ok at best on my dual core 2 gig machines [still alot slower than version 6]].

thnx for your comments.

 

[GLComputing]

Just wondering... what pipe cmd did you use?

ACT! 7 was a complete re-write and had issues relating to .Net 1.1 that made it a major issue. I have very few problems with 9.0 and 10.0 (which is faster again)

When you say it "doesn't load", what happens?

1GB should be fine except for large databases or servers... HDD speed can be more important than processor speed, except for servers with many users - but I always recommend a SwapFile (all machines) of 2GB or twice the RAM for machines with more than 1GB

ACT! 9/10 will be faster than 6 on large databases if Windows is properly set up, but on low end hardware and smaller databases, ACT! 6 will be faster.

Regards,
Mike Lazarus
ACT! Evangelist
GL Computing, Aust

http://www.GLComputing.com.au

 

[p15650]

Hi,

I have the file created by act get processed by:

cmd.exe /c type c:\file1.txt > c:\file2.txt

this resaves file1.txt as a good text file by name file2.txt which my parser can actually read!

I have 3200 contacts with about ~30000 activities; i run ms sql 2000 standard on 2000 server for medical records program. installed act 2007 on server where it actually installed msql express 2005 running with the sql 2000 standard [the server is dual core pentium 820 with 2.5 gig of ram [older machine], raid 0 320gig dual drives [with frequent backups to protect from raid 0!!!]

The workstation working OK is a amd x2 1900 with 1 gig; the machine that i have to upgrade can't even bring up the monthly calender. It connects to act database and shows my contact. When i press on monthly view, the monthly view of activities show up in the center pane but than it takes it about 10 minutes to one by one show the right activity list [during whcih time act can't be used at all]; and then when it finishes, any attempt to use any of the commands, etc again takes for ever.

Is act 10 faster than 9 or faster than msde version of 8/7? I chose 2007 becasue of your suggestion that express was better than msde.

Thnx

 

[GLComputing]

Why do you have 30k activities? It might be running out of RAM loading that amount of data on the 1GB machine - you could try increasing the Swap File space as I previously suggested... by default on a !GB machine, XP will allocate 512kb. Defrag the drive first and change the min AND max setting to 2GB.

Try the fixes in this

http://tinyurl.com/2u926d

(the diag fo ACT! 2007 is actdiag, not act8diag). Also try

http://tinyurl.com/2pbp5q

Failing that, are both machines on the LAN (ie you're not comparing a workstation to the server)?
Are both machines logged into ACT! as the same user and filtering for the same users in the calander?


ACT! 2007 will install SQL Server 2005 Express for ACT! Standard or Premium EX. It will install SQL Server 2005 Standard for Premium ST.

Re drive speed... the HDD RPM speed can make a big difference. I recommend a minimum of 7200rpm with 10,000 showing a good improvement.

Different SQL engines and instances can run on the same machine. ACT! had to go to 2005 because SQL 2000 won't run under Vista (it's also faster)

ACT! 9/10 are faster than 7/8 both because of the later SQL engine and the later .Net framework from Microsoft.

ACT! 10 uses same database engine and .Net framework as 9.0, but I have found it faster and more responsive on most functions. They obviously spend some times on optimization.

Regards,
Mike Lazarus
ACT! Evangelist
GL Computing, Aust

http://www.GLComputing.com.au