Page 1 of 1
Upgrading Program
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 13:21
by Alan Clark
I've been working on the very old Sage Line 50 Version 5 for the last few years. Am I likely to be able to understand Sage Accounts 2009 if I decide to upgrade?
I know there are bound to be a lot of refinements but are the basic methods of entry similar?
I've also seen Sage Instant Accounts V14 advertised but this doesn't seem to include a Nominal Ledger; is it suitable for a company with a turnover of around £1 million?
Many thanks.
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 16:15
by brucedenney
V5 is VERY old, you can try out Sage accounts in your web browser here and see if you can understand it before you upgrade, the interface is a little different now, but the bulk of it is exactly the same underlying format.
Instant Accounts has a Nominal Ledger again, you can try it on-line, they both have a very similar user interface (same).
Sage 50
http://www.runaware.com/clients/sageuk/ ... 50accounts
Instant Accounts Test Drive
http://www.runaware.com/clients/sageuk/ ... ntaccounts
P.S. if you do want an upgrade or a copy of Instant accounts, I would appreciate any business you can pass my way.
Posted: 30 Dec 2008, 16:41
by Alan Clark
That's great. Thanks very much for your help.
I don't think I'll have any problems.
Posted: 14 Jan 2009, 14:33
by niceguyedy
Alan Clark wrote:That's great. Thanks very much for your help.
I don't think I'll have any problems.
bare in mine you cannot go straight from v5 to version 2009, you will have to either submit data for conversion free of charge at sage, or they can supply a free version of sage v9-12 to leap frog between.
also what kind of pc is v5 on, as 2009 will command a lot more than v5, you need
1Ghz (or equivalent) processor
512MB RAM
minimum.
Posted: 14 Jan 2009, 15:09
by brucedenney
Alan has a good point, if Sage get "upperty" about converting Sage 50 data to use with Instant, I would happily do that for you.
Posted: 15 Jan 2009, 16:12
by Alan Clark
Much appreciated. Thanks once again.
Re: Upgrading Program
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 13:39
by martinfreye
Alan, I'd recommend leaving it well alone. the latest program, which we stupidly upgraded last year, has given us nothing but headaches and cost about £400. Basically, it does everything that the old program did but in a different way and takes 20 times longer.
For instance, after entering anything, or asking the program to print an invoice, I have time to go outside and have a fag before it's completed!
I am still trying to reconcile the bank account after the "New" upgrade last summer removed the ability to highlight and see the totals. After complaining Sage admitted they had it wrong and gave me another "Upgrade"which did.
My MD says he'd pay almost anything to get back to version 10.
Worst thing is, I am getting the blame for all this! ( Yes, I am cross )
For a Co with a turnover of a million, I'd not recommend anything else either. Ours is about that size.
Bruce at "makingIThappen" has been very helpful . try him.
Difficulty is that if you scramble the data Sage won't help unless your over version 11 although Bruce might be able to help, ask him.
V10 worked well.
Regards,
Martin
Alan Clark wrote:I've been working on the very old Sage Line 50 Version 5 for the last few years. Am I likely to be able to understand Sage Accounts 2009 if I decide to upgrade?
I know there are bound to be a lot of refinements but are the basic methods of entry similar?
I've also seen Sage Instant Accounts V14 advertised but this doesn't seem to include a Nominal Ledger; is it suitable for a company with a turnover of around £1 million?
Many thanks.
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 16:09
by niceguyedy
Difficulty is that if you scramble the data Sage won't help unless your over version 11 although Bruce might be able to help, ask him.
where is this info from, sage assist in all version from 9 and above?
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 16:23
by Alan Clark
Thanks once again. The couple of companies that I work for decided to buy the new 2009 program and I've been entering the opening balances this afternoon. I did phone the Helpline with a query but was told that I'd have to hang on for 8 minutes and managed to sort it out myself.
Everything seems to agree at the moment but I certainly agree that it is not user friendly.
I'm sure that whoever invented double-entry bookkeeping all those years ago never intended it to be that complicated!!!