How about not outsourcing or replacing your QA department with paying Sage customers?

Your paying customers must not be your QA department, and if that is your position/marketing strategy, how about we get credit toward the renewal for every hour we spend installing>reinstalling>installing your new release.

Have the developers test the "new" release with real world datasets, not 500MB ones you call "large", we are talking 10-20 GB.

Test all the ID lists with thousands of list items (stock items, customers, vendors, employees, SO, PO, Invoices, et cetera)

Test and make sure lists or fields can show as many characters as the field in the database can store.

Test all versions with multiple users at once.

Test all versions on hardware/vm based on your minimum and recommended requirements and with large (normal) datasets.

Test the "new" release installed on systems that had the previous release installed.

Quantum: Have devs and testers install/upgrade 40 seat cases: asked them to record how long it takes to do a full install.

Quantum: Have devs + testers use on Sage on +20 workstations at once, with large datasets.

Quantum: Have devs + testers install a Tax update on +30 workstations, where you need the admin password and temporarily add the database UNC path to installer context on each of them, only to replace a tiny tax tables file. Then, try that, on a real world environment where these workstations may be locked down with end point / AV and require IT to disable safeguards every 3 months just for this one tiny file. 

Have devs and testers use Sage on high resolution monitors, no one uses 14-17" monitors anymore.

Have devs and testers use Sage's smallest but with high usage screens for hours, perhaps they can understand how making these screens expandable can help.

Have devs and testers use Sage with bigger Text, Windows > Display > Make everything bigger > +100%

Then, after all that, test again, then release the upgrade, but extend the obsolescence policy at least 12 months.

The last 3 releases have had critical issues that were not completely "fixed" until almost the cut off date. (case in point, 2023 upgrade still is a mess, a week before the March cutoff date).

  • 0

    Amen!!!  Well Said.  I only wish they would hear you.

  • 0

    Thank you for taking the time to post this feedback . I've forwarded it onto the team for review.

  • 0

    Well Folks, I have a little good news.  I previously posted about our bad experiences, so it is only fair to post about the good ones too.  Our IT person has successfully installed the 2023 Quantum update on our server and helped me to finish out on our workstations. For all appearances, it seems to be working properly. There are no long waits for our reports or inventory lists. (as long as you don’t ask for too many * options.)  No horrible lock-ups.  All users seem to be able to work at the same time.  This is day one after the installation and I believe it is working relatively well.  As time moves on we will see if there are other individual issues, but as to the day-to-day functionality it appears that their updates have been successful.  I am hesitant to state we have full success as we have not processed through all functions and processes as of yet, but things seem to be mostly ok.  I do feel some relief to finally be running at a reasonable speed and function.   

    I do want to thank those that posted information that ultimately was helpful with ideas about re-installing the update. It did help me to make a decision on when to install, what to wait, on etc. 

    Having said that…..I am NOT a fan AT ALL of this “community” format that Sage chooses to use when their support person is not able to adequately solve the issues. (It stands to reason they cannot fix things when the program itself is majorly broken) I am most likely a Dinosaur for thinking this way but one-on-one support is what we pay for and what Sage advertises and should ultimately be the tool of choice.

    I do not think that this “community” version of help is beneficial to good productivity nor is it a safe way to handle individual problems.  Having to spend hours looking for some tiny shred of another’s conversation and misfortunes to find what ultimately may or may not help your specific situation is neither a satisfactory or preferred way to get help.  Why are we your support network? I agree completely with what OscarDiazOrozco has said before about your handling of the roll out of your programs.  Those that choose to use your software for productive purposes should not be your proving ground.

    Please Sage, do not just put band-aids on your programs and expect us to be able to use for the long term. Although I do not expect anything to come of what I have read from others or what I have said here, it would behoove Sage to change their business model away from quick profits with support packages and higher and higher program fees and become customer oriented to actually service their customers’ needs so they feel as if they have purchased a quality program they can depend on and most importantly, Trust.  The fiasco with this year makes me dread and not trust the next roll out.  Good Luck To All.

  • 0 in reply to Wise1

    Thank you for taking the time to provide this feedback . I've passed it onto the Sage 50 US support and product management teams for review.

    Technical issues can often best be troubleshooted as a community. Sage City is an optional peer-to-peer platform where users can come together to share details about common issues and tips for resolving them. In the event of a larger issue, that only programmers can address, our moderators are here to help keep teams informed. However, it is always best to stay in touch directly with our support teams by either updating your support ticket online and or staying in touch by email or chat.

    Issues that require escalation can take more time to resolve but are often kept track of by teams who follow-up with users to advise them of ETAs for resolution. Your posts here help to ensure that this follow-up happens. Very sorry that this was not clearly communicated.