MAS 90 or 200

[GuitarG]

I have finally gotten the OK to upgrade our company's accounting software. We are currently using Peachtree Complete 2003. We have 10 people who will need access to the software with usually no more than 5 working in the system at the same time. We do about $30M annually. I have been researching Mas 90, but I am wondering if 200 might be the way to go. We are expecting substatial growth in the next year and I'm wondering if I might be painting myself into a corner with 90. Is MAS 90 expandable to handle an increase in users/ transactions/revenue? Has anyone migrated to MAS 90 and then found it necessary to make the jump to 200?
Any opinions would be appreciated.

 

[dgillz]

Mas200 is simply the MS SQL Server version of Mas90. I would highly recommend going to MS SQL server if you anticipate a lot of growth. Please keep in mind that no matter what direction you go, you are likely to incur costs updating your Server and Workstations as well.

PS - if you would like to take a look at Macola, please email me a dgilsdorf@trianglepartners.com. We also have a data conversion path with Peachtree data to Macola.



Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Exact Macola, eSynergy, and Crystal Reports

http://www.trianglepartners.com

 

[CsaintAZ]

GuitarG,

Actually, MAS 200 comes in 2 versions. MAS 200 based on Providex, and MAS 200 SQL which uses SQL Server as the database engine. We have several clients with 20 to 30 very active users running on MAS 90. The largest of these processes 200 to 300 invoices per day. Their customer master has over 130,000 customers. They are running on a two year old Pentium server and P2 and P3 workstations.

The main reason to go to Mas 200 (non-sql version) would be if you expect to quickly exceed the 20 to 30 user range. I think "Best" says 10 users in their white paper, which could be a CYA statement or maybe because MAS 200 is quite a bit more expensive. One other benefit of MAS 200 (non-sql) is that updates (batch postings) occur faster. By faster, I mean a few seconds for a daily sales update versus maybe a minute with MAs 90.

MAS 200 SQL actually seems a bit slower in terms of user interface with slightly slower response when a user, for example, moves from a Sales Order Header to the lines page.

The big difference is when you print reports. They scream! Printing an AR aging with several thousand customers takes seconds compared to minutes on non-sql versions. Of course another reason might be the existence of an SQL based application in your organization that you are hoping to link to MAS 90 or 200. ODBC does this, just not as fast, and with less flexibility.

The final reason, if you can call it that, is someone in your organization that falls for the "Industry-Standard" hype. For some reason, there are those that feel SQL is the only way to go even though they have never worked with SQL, ODBC, DBF, etc. They also are probably not the person writing the check. Going from MAS90 to MAS200 will cost you about 5K additional for the first 5 users and a couple k additional for each 5 user pack after that. SQL is that much more than standard MAS 200.

Whatever you consider, keep in mind that Best will give you 20% right off the top if you are a registered Peachtree user. Hope this helps.

 

[Woodtock]

WE are a user of MAS200 for SQL.
although we do not have much experience with mas 90, we have found extensive value in an open database enviorment.
Yes it may cost more upfront and yes, enhancements will cost more however, when we looked at both, we rapidly moved to the SQL. I would recommend a server dedicated to SQL and MAS200 with dual processors. Although performance will be fine with anything on Best Softwares list, this configuartion will scream.

A major difference between the two is the global editing features with SQL versus writing or purchasing utilities for mas90. SQL is a widelt used recognized database and the outside integration far exceeds what mas90 can.

My advise is to write down every specific "little" function you are doing now and compare to make the software can handle this. The software is weak, in the E-commerce side, and the inventory by lot/serial valuation. The RMA module is a bit old fashion but can handle simple requests.

If you are integrating front office systems with this, then definately SQL is a better way to go.

 

[Omnicef]

I am a best software partner and I agree, mas 200 at a minimum, mas 200 SQL is very helpful as crystal reports (and graphical forms) can be considerably slower with odbc of mas 90/200

Thnks in advance to all users out there who continually answer all of our questions. Although I try to answer some questions, I usually am asking.

 

[timave]

we are using MAS 200 Prvx version, is there any real world benefits to using SQL? I know that SQL will be easier for me to do reports and queries against it.. but how stable is it?

 

[ntco]

I don't know about stability, but SQL really offers some serious speed in regards to reports.

however, as for the above questions, I pretty much agree with CsaintAZ. I looked extensively at moving up from MAS90 to MAS200 (both prvx and SQL) because our reporting guy was really hankering for something faster.
But, using a single file server (db=14GB) with only around a solid 10 users, (6 heavy), & the largest amount of invoicing/sales printing peaking in the 150/per day range (couple months out of the year)--there was really no way to substantiate the cost of that upgrade (we also do zero remote accessing).

Plus, running Netware, we'd have to implement an entire network upgrade as well (MAS200 only runs on Windows Server). The difference between administering a Windows server and Netware one is another added cost.

Those minimum estimated costs would be upward of $15 to $20K (not including labor) just to eliminate the 2 minute lag time for our report guy.
Our growth is also pretty modest--we're lucky if we add a person every 2-3 years and the company averages about 3M per year.

 

[yipster]

Go with Mas 200 PRVX forget SQL it is still on 3.72 and not 4.1 platform. You can access mas 200 remotely via a vpn which is a plus.

 

[BigLouie]

In terms of speed the ranking would be:

1. Fastest would be MAS200 (non-SQL). Client/Server. Little data corruption

2. MAS90 is a file server system and considerably slower than 200. Because the files are moved to the work station and then back there is more data corruption. 70% of a consultants tech calls are normally MAS90 based.

3. Dead slowest is MAS200 SQL version. On some file rebuilds we are talking multi-hours compared to seconds in the non-SQL version.

 

[valkyry]

MAS 200 for SQL all the way.

you should not have to rebuild, if at all

 

[diogenes10]

I am not in the decision making or technical evaluation loops in my company, but from a user perspective I think podunk411 has valuable comments. There are points where the little incremental gains are not worthwhile in regard to the additional costs the company would incur. I think we have higher paper volumes than podunk expressed and as far as I know MAS90 is doing just fine for us.