Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Progression 7.7.100
- Thread starter Maz61
- Start date
I have several customers on 7.7.100 without issues but there is one who is using serial/lot with hard allocation that is having an issue.
Can you share more about your environment? What modules you are using and in what circumstances?
Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, Synergy, and Crystal Reports. Check out our Macola tools:
Can you share more about your environment? What modules you are using and in what circumstances?
Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, Synergy, and Crystal Reports. Check out our Macola tools:
- Thread starter
- #3
Hi Don,
Thanks for the reply. We are currently running 7.6.400, no SP applied, on SQL2000. We are using AP, AR, BM, GL, IM, OE, PO, PP, using F9 and have a few Flex add-ons. Not using Serial/Lot. In the near future, I will be migrating my SQL Server to new hardware and while I am doing that I want to migrate to SQL 2005 since we already paid for it. I was just wondering if I should stay with 7.6.400 and apply SP B or upgrade to 7.7.100. I usually don't make a habit of jumping on the latest Macola version but since I am going through all this I thought I would just install the latest. Thanks.
Jim
Thanks for the reply. We are currently running 7.6.400, no SP applied, on SQL2000. We are using AP, AR, BM, GL, IM, OE, PO, PP, using F9 and have a few Flex add-ons. Not using Serial/Lot. In the near future, I will be migrating my SQL Server to new hardware and while I am doing that I want to migrate to SQL 2005 since we already paid for it. I was just wondering if I should stay with 7.6.400 and apply SP B or upgrade to 7.7.100. I usually don't make a habit of jumping on the latest Macola version but since I am going through all this I thought I would just install the latest. Thanks.
Jim
- Thread starter
- #4
The only differences between 7.6.400 and 7.7 is the 1GB ram requirement (vs 512MB) and the dual core 2.0 GHz (vs 1.2GHz).
Which of these is a problem for you? How many users do you have?
I am not questioning your decision, I am trying to document for Exact just how expensive a "free" upgrade can be. They have changed so little I do not see the need for beefier processors and more ram for existing Windows 2000 Pro or XP Pro machines.
New machines, especially Vista machines, are likely to exceed this configuration anyway.
Any feedback appreciated.
Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, Synergy, and Crystal Reports. Check out our Macola tools:
Which of these is a problem for you? How many users do you have?
I am not questioning your decision, I am trying to document for Exact just how expensive a "free" upgrade can be. They have changed so little I do not see the need for beefier processors and more ram for existing Windows 2000 Pro or XP Pro machines.
New machines, especially Vista machines, are likely to exceed this configuration anyway.
Any feedback appreciated.
Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, Synergy, and Crystal Reports. Check out our Macola tools:
- Thread starter
- #6
We have roughly 35 users running XP Pro and maybe 1/3 of them meet the minimum requirements with processor and memory. The other 2/3 are a mixture of Celeron D, Pentium D, Athlon XP and some Pentium 4. About half of those are only running 512MB. We don't have any machines that exceed those minimum requirements. In my experience, running minimum requirements means you will not get good performance. I already have one user running a Celeron D with 1GB and they are running real slow. I would hate to think what 7.7.100 would do to them.
7.7.100 is hardly a change at all from 7.6.400. A few minor big fixes and it accommodates Vista. I asked Exact why someone that has been using XP Pro with 512MB all along would suddenly need to upgrade to 1GB and a dual core processor and they said you wouldn't, but if there were performance issues they would not support it.
Not very reassuring.
Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, Synergy, and Crystal Reports. Check out our Macola tools:
Not very reassuring.
Software Sales, Training, Implementation and Support for Macola, Synergy, and Crystal Reports. Check out our Macola tools:
- Thread starter
- #8
crystalreporting
Instructor
I understand Exact wont support 7.7.100 on anything less than 1GB, but can anyone confirm that it will run on less then 1GB?
Peter Shirley
Macola Consultant, PA and surrounding states.
Peter Shirley
Macola Consultant, PA and surrounding states.
I cannot confirm that 7.7.100 will run on a desktop with less than 1Gb RAM (as I am not using 7.7.100).
We are running Progression 7.7 with Flex 7.6.400
It runs just fine and we don't see any benefit in updating either Macola to 7.7.100 or Flex to 7.7 at this point in time.
Obvioulsy whatever bugs were fixed in the 7.7.100 update aren't causing us problems at this point.
We have desktops here with XP Pro SP3 and only 250MB of RAM running Macola Progression 7.7 with Flex 7.6.400 without issue.
We are running Progression 7.7 with Flex 7.6.400
It runs just fine and we don't see any benefit in updating either Macola to 7.7.100 or Flex to 7.7 at this point in time.
Obvioulsy whatever bugs were fixed in the 7.7.100 update aren't causing us problems at this point.
We have desktops here with XP Pro SP3 and only 250MB of RAM running Macola Progression 7.7 with Flex 7.6.400 without issue.
The hardware requirements changed from 7.6x to 7.7 for two reasons. First, the introduction of Windows Vista, as supported platform, which has much greater hardware needs than win2k or winxp. Second, was feedback from customer base that complained that our 'minimum' hardware requirements were outdated as they referenced hardware that was no longer available(i.e. PIII/P4, 128/256/512M). The current requirements are in place for purchasing new hardware.
As for the statement that if there were performance issues Exact would not support the hardware, the support team at Exact would support the product working on hardware that is less than posted requirements, but if the issue was being caused because lack of processor speed or memory, they would make the recommendation to upgrade hardware based on facts, not just the fact that hardware was less than posted.
Patrick J. Ballenger
Macola Support Manager
Exact Software Americas
patrick.ballenger@exactsoftware.com
1-877-EXACTSW(392-2879)
As for the statement that if there were performance issues Exact would not support the hardware, the support team at Exact would support the product working on hardware that is less than posted requirements, but if the issue was being caused because lack of processor speed or memory, they would make the recommendation to upgrade hardware based on facts, not just the fact that hardware was less than posted.
Patrick J. Ballenger
Macola Support Manager
Exact Software Americas
patrick.ballenger@exactsoftware.com
1-877-EXACTSW(392-2879)
crystalreporting
Instructor
Thanks for the clarification Patrick.
Peter Shirley
Macola Consultant, PA and surrounding states.
Peter Shirley
Macola Consultant, PA and surrounding states.
I've got to say that I am very surpirsed that anyone would complain that a stated "minimum" hardware requirement was a problem because it was outdated.
It is after all a MINIMUM specification therefore anything "newer or faster", for want of a better description, would be by default, adequate.
Perhaps the hardware requirements should have been stated in a "Platform Specific" form to avoid confusion.
eg. For Vista - 1Gb Ram w/- 2.0Ghz Dual Core processor.
For Windows XP Pro - 256Mb P4 etc.
As for Vista it's pretty much dead in the water anyway. I do hope the current focus is on compatibility with Windows 7 before the fact.
It is after all a MINIMUM specification therefore anything "newer or faster", for want of a better description, would be by default, adequate.
Perhaps the hardware requirements should have been stated in a "Platform Specific" form to avoid confusion.
eg. For Vista - 1Gb Ram w/- 2.0Ghz Dual Core processor.
For Windows XP Pro - 256Mb P4 etc.
As for Vista it's pretty much dead in the water anyway. I do hope the current focus is on compatibility with Windows 7 before the fact.
- Status