Code 128 Barcode

I am surprised with the lack of satisfaction with Bartender. I opted
for a different approach because of cost, but...
We used Code 39 on the traveler and anything printed from Crystal. If
you enable your scanner for extended code 39 you should be able to get
the additional characters (all our job numbers have two "-"s and they
all print and scan without modification).
I use a combination of Wasp Labeler, BPM to export a file with the data
I wish to print and a customization to print the label based on the BPM
having exported it's file. It's not as convenient as a built in product
and it does require calls to an external application, but it works like
a charm to automatically print labels based on transactions within
Vantage and it can be accomplished by anyone with minimal programming
background.
All that being said, I love Code128 because it scans so well and it's
barcodes are much shorter than equivalent Code 39 barcodes. Everything
I print from the Wasp Labeler is done with 128 because I can make it
large and it still fits on a label giving the ability to scan product
from several feet away.
Best of luck,
Aaron Hoyt
Vantage Plastics

Vic Drecchio wrote:
>
> Agreed. BarTender is far from plug-and-play and when I worked for
> Epicor, I tried to convince customers NOT to purchase it. If you can
> live with Code39's limitations, then do so. Otherwise, Code128/EAN etc,
> is a pain. However, many vendors, especially in Europe, are increasing
> their demands for supplier shipping compliance.
>
> It will require either remote or onsite consulting from Epicor's
> Advanced Solutions Group or a very savvy administrator with an
> expert-level knowledge of the system. And, once it is installed, you
> only have a handful of label definitions that Vantage can pump to
> BarTender.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf
> Of Bob Carlson
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
> Caution is advised re Bartender. We bought it thinking it was a
> straight plug-in...not so. It requires a lot of Epicor Consulting to
> hook it in. In view of the cost and the lack of a global interface
> to Vantage we bought it but keep it web-deployed and independent of
> Vantage.....it is used as a departmental tool for producing labels.
> To incorporate all of our custom labels each as an individual item to
> hook to Vantage was too cumbersome & expensive.
>
> We have not tackled the use of ODBC yet as we consider that an
> archane method of hooking to the database.
>
> We were also not delighted with the liscensing arrangement, it is by
> named printer with liscence fees per printer.
>
> Bar coding in Crystal is no picnic either...that's what led us to
> Bartender......our conclusion was that we stick with barcoded
> travellers by Vantage & all labels by departmental use of Bartender.
> We re-type the label info until we are rerady to bite the bullet on
> ODBC connection to the SQL Db.
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Vic
> Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Bartender is a good solution for integration with Vantage/Vista and
> will
> > do 128 just fine. Otherwise, the Crystal add-in will work OK, too,
> but
> > I honestly cannot remember if the Crystal Viewer in Vantage will
> utilize
> > it?
> >
> > I loathe 128, too.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf
> > Of Todd Caughey
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:30 PM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
> >
> >
> >
> > No I guess it has never come up because nobody here has ever
> complained.
> > I can bet the * would present a problem in Code 39. If I can push
> the
> > whole issue off until after we are on 8.x (someday way off in the
> > future) it will be much easier to deal with using the Crystal add-in
> > when running against a BAQ generated XML file with the label info.
> By
> > then I might not be so averse to Code 128.
> > -Todd C.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%
> 40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> > Behalf Of Jasper Recto
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:48 PM
> > To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:%27vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%27vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%27vantage%40yahoogroups.com> '
> > Subject: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
> >
> > Todd, we use code 39 but are looking into using Code 128 for one
> reason
> > only.
> >
> > We have part numbers that have lower and upper case letters, / ,\, -
> ,
> > and *. These characters will not translate properly.
> >
> > Have you problems with this? If so, have been able to get around
> this
> > issue?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jasper
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%
> 40yahoogroups.com>]
> > On Behalf Of Todd Caughey
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:41 PM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
> >
> > So far we have been able to dodge that bullet. Because of the
> internal
> > check digit calculations Code 128 is not as easy as a Code 39 font
> > substitution. Usually specialized software is required and for our
> > Report Builder based labeling that was not going to work. So far we
> have
> > gotten exemptions from all our customers asking for it....or done
> Code
> > 39 anyway and they might not even notice since most scanners will
> pick
> > that up too. If we ever have an absolute mandate to use it and the
> > customer is large enough I have a Crystal add-in that someone in
> this
> > group pointed me to that will generate the values needed to go with
> the
> > Code 128 font in order for it to scan correctly....sort of like the
> * in
> > Code 39 but more complicated. Until then I am resisting Code 128 as
> > strongly as I can.
> > -Todd C.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%
> 40yahoogroups.com>] On
> > Behalf Of melissa hietala
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:28 PM
> > To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
> >
> > Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this
> > barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
> > Thanks,
> > Dustin Biniek
> > DustinB@... <mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com>
> > <mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:DustinB%
> 40ultramc.com><mailto:Dust
> > inB%40ultramc.com>
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
Thanks,
Dustin Biniek
DustinB@...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
So far we have been able to dodge that bullet. Because of the internal check digit calculations Code 128 is not as easy as a Code 39 font substitution. Usually specialized software is required and for our Report Builder based labeling that was not going to work. So far we have gotten exemptions from all our customers asking for it....or done Code 39 anyway and they might not even notice since most scanners will pick that up too. If we ever have an absolute mandate to use it and the customer is large enough I have a Crystal add-in that someone in this group pointed me to that will generate the values needed to go with the Code 128 font in order for it to scan correctly....sort of like the * in Code 39 but more complicated. Until then I am resisting Code 128 as strongly as I can.
-Todd C.

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of melissa hietala
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:28 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode


Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
Thanks,
Dustin Biniek
DustinB@...<mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Todd, we use code 39 but are looking into using Code 128 for one reason only.

We have part numbers that have lower and upper case letters, / ,\, -, and *. These characters will not translate properly.

Have you problems with this? If so, have been able to get around this issue?

Thanks,
Jasper

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd Caughey
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:41 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode


So far we have been able to dodge that bullet. Because of the internal check digit calculations Code 128 is not as easy as a Code 39 font substitution. Usually specialized software is required and for our Report Builder based labeling that was not going to work. So far we have gotten exemptions from all our customers asking for it....or done Code 39 anyway and they might not even notice since most scanners will pick that up too. If we ever have an absolute mandate to use it and the customer is large enough I have a Crystal add-in that someone in this group pointed me to that will generate the values needed to go with the Code 128 font in order for it to scan correctly....sort of like the * in Code 39 but more complicated. Until then I am resisting Code 128 as strongly as I can.
-Todd C.

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of melissa hietala
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:28 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode

Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
Thanks,
Dustin Biniek
DustinB@...<mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No I guess it has never come up because nobody here has ever complained. I can bet the * would present a problem in Code 39. If I can push the whole issue off until after we are on 8.x (someday way off in the future) it will be much easier to deal with using the Crystal add-in when running against a BAQ generated XML file with the label info. By then I might not be so averse to Code 128.
-Todd C.

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jasper Recto
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:48 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode


Todd, we use code 39 but are looking into using Code 128 for one reason only.

We have part numbers that have lower and upper case letters, / ,\, -, and *. These characters will not translate properly.

Have you problems with this? If so, have been able to get around this issue?

Thanks,
Jasper

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Todd Caughey
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:41 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode

So far we have been able to dodge that bullet. Because of the internal check digit calculations Code 128 is not as easy as a Code 39 font substitution. Usually specialized software is required and for our Report Builder based labeling that was not going to work. So far we have gotten exemptions from all our customers asking for it....or done Code 39 anyway and they might not even notice since most scanners will pick that up too. If we ever have an absolute mandate to use it and the customer is large enough I have a Crystal add-in that someone in this group pointed me to that will generate the values needed to go with the Code 128 font in order for it to scan correctly....sort of like the * in Code 39 but more complicated. Until then I am resisting Code 128 as strongly as I can.
-Todd C.

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of melissa hietala
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:28 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode

Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
Thanks,
Dustin Biniek
DustinB@...<mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bartender is a good solution for integration with Vantage/Vista and will
do 128 just fine. Otherwise, the Crystal add-in will work OK, too, but
I honestly cannot remember if the Crystal Viewer in Vantage will utilize
it?

I loathe 128, too.

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Todd Caughey
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:30 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode



No I guess it has never come up because nobody here has ever complained.
I can bet the * would present a problem in Code 39. If I can push the
whole issue off until after we are on 8.x (someday way off in the
future) it will be much easier to deal with using the Crystal add-in
when running against a BAQ generated XML file with the label info. By
then I might not be so averse to Code 128.
-Todd C.

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of Jasper Recto
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:48 PM
To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:%27vantage%40yahoogroups.com> '
Subject: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode

Todd, we use code 39 but are looking into using Code 128 for one reason
only.

We have part numbers that have lower and upper case letters, / ,\, -,
and *. These characters will not translate properly.

Have you problems with this? If so, have been able to get around this
issue?

Thanks,
Jasper

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>]
On Behalf Of Todd Caughey
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:41 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode

So far we have been able to dodge that bullet. Because of the internal
check digit calculations Code 128 is not as easy as a Code 39 font
substitution. Usually specialized software is required and for our
Report Builder based labeling that was not going to work. So far we have
gotten exemptions from all our customers asking for it....or done Code
39 anyway and they might not even notice since most scanners will pick
that up too. If we ever have an absolute mandate to use it and the
customer is large enough I have a Crystal add-in that someone in this
group pointed me to that will generate the values needed to go with the
Code 128 font in order for it to scan correctly....sort of like the * in
Code 39 but more complicated. Until then I am resisting Code 128 as
strongly as I can.
-Todd C.

________________________________
From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>] On
Behalf Of melissa hietala
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:28 PM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode

Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this
barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
Thanks,
Dustin Biniek
DustinB@... <mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com>
<mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:Dust
inB%40ultramc.com>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks a bunch Aaron.
 Dustin Biniek
UMC, Inc.
DustinB@...



----- Original Message ----
From: Aaron Shaffer <ashaffer@...>
To: melissa hietala <kevmel822@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 2:42:38 PM
Subject: RE: Code 128 Barcode


Â


________________________________
From: melissa hietala [mailto:kevmel822@...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:41 PM
To: Aaron Shaffer
Subject: Re: Code 128 Barcode


Aaron,
Â
If I could get that it would be much appreciated.
Â
Thanks,
 Dustin Biniek
UMC, Inc.

DustinB@...



----- Original Message ----
From: Aaron Shaffer <ashaffer@...>
To: melissa hietala <kevmel822@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 2:20:27 PM
Subject: Re: Code 128 Barcode

I have a free GPL copy of Code 128. Do you want it?

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, melissa hietala <kevmel822@...> wrote:
>
> Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this
barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
> Thanks,
> Dustin Biniek
> DustinB@...
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Caution is advised re Bartender. We bought it thinking it was a
straight plug-in...not so. It requires a lot of Epicor Consulting to
hook it in. In view of the cost and the lack of a global interface
to Vantage we bought it but keep it web-deployed and independent of
Vantage.....it is used as a departmental tool for producing labels.
To incorporate all of our custom labels each as an individual item to
hook to Vantage was too cumbersome & expensive.

We have not tackled the use of ODBC yet as we consider that an
archane method of hooking to the database.

We were also not delighted with the liscensing arrangement, it is by
named printer with liscence fees per printer.

Bar coding in Crystal is no picnic either...that's what led us to
Bartender......our conclusion was that we stick with barcoded
travellers by Vantage & all labels by departmental use of Bartender.
We re-type the label info until we are rerady to bite the bullet on
ODBC connection to the SQL Db.


--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Vic Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...>
wrote:
>
> Bartender is a good solution for integration with Vantage/Vista and
will
> do 128 just fine. Otherwise, the Crystal add-in will work OK, too,
but
> I honestly cannot remember if the Crystal Viewer in Vantage will
utilize
> it?
>
> I loathe 128, too.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of Todd Caughey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:30 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
>
>
> No I guess it has never come up because nobody here has ever
complained.
> I can bet the * would present a problem in Code 39. If I can push
the
> whole issue off until after we are on 8.x (someday way off in the
> future) it will be much easier to deal with using the Crystal add-in
> when running against a BAQ generated XML file with the label info.
By
> then I might not be so averse to Code 128.
> -Todd C.
>
> ________________________________
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf Of Jasper Recto
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:48 PM
> To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:%27vantage%40yahoogroups.com> '
> Subject: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
> Todd, we use code 39 but are looking into using Code 128 for one
reason
> only.
>
> We have part numbers that have lower and upper case letters, / ,\, -
,
> and *. These characters will not translate properly.
>
> Have you problems with this? If so, have been able to get around
this
> issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Jasper
>
> ________________________________
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Todd Caughey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:41 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
> So far we have been able to dodge that bullet. Because of the
internal
> check digit calculations Code 128 is not as easy as a Code 39 font
> substitution. Usually specialized software is required and for our
> Report Builder based labeling that was not going to work. So far we
have
> gotten exemptions from all our customers asking for it....or done
Code
> 39 anyway and they might not even notice since most scanners will
pick
> that up too. If we ever have an absolute mandate to use it and the
> customer is large enough I have a Crystal add-in that someone in
this
> group pointed me to that will generate the values needed to go with
the
> Code 128 font in order for it to scan correctly....sort of like the
* in
> Code 39 but more complicated. Until then I am resisting Code 128 as
> strongly as I can.
> -Todd C.
>
> ________________________________
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf Of melissa hietala
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:28 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
> Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this
> barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
> Thanks,
> Dustin Biniek
> DustinB@... <mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com>
> <mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:DustinB%
40ultramc.com><mailto:Dust
> inB%40ultramc.com>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Agreed. BarTender is far from plug-and-play and when I worked for
Epicor, I tried to convince customers NOT to purchase it. If you can
live with Code39's limitations, then do so. Otherwise, Code128/EAN etc,
is a pain. However, many vendors, especially in Europe, are increasing
their demands for supplier shipping compliance.

It will require either remote or onsite consulting from Epicor's
Advanced Solutions Group or a very savvy administrator with an
expert-level knowledge of the system. And, once it is installed, you
only have a handful of label definitions that Vantage can pump to
BarTender.

________________________________

From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Bob Carlson
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 10:06 AM
To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode



Caution is advised re Bartender. We bought it thinking it was a
straight plug-in...not so. It requires a lot of Epicor Consulting to
hook it in. In view of the cost and the lack of a global interface
to Vantage we bought it but keep it web-deployed and independent of
Vantage.....it is used as a departmental tool for producing labels.
To incorporate all of our custom labels each as an individual item to
hook to Vantage was too cumbersome & expensive.

We have not tackled the use of ODBC yet as we consider that an
archane method of hooking to the database.

We were also not delighted with the liscensing arrangement, it is by
named printer with liscence fees per printer.

Bar coding in Crystal is no picnic either...that's what led us to
Bartender......our conclusion was that we stick with barcoded
travellers by Vantage & all labels by departmental use of Bartender.
We re-type the label info until we are rerady to bite the bullet on
ODBC connection to the SQL Db.

--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> , "Vic
Drecchio" <vic.drecchio@...>
wrote:
>
> Bartender is a good solution for integration with Vantage/Vista and
will
> do 128 just fine. Otherwise, the Crystal add-in will work OK, too,
but
> I honestly cannot remember if the Crystal Viewer in Vantage will
utilize
> it?
>
> I loathe 128, too.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf
> Of Todd Caughey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:30 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
>
>
> No I guess it has never come up because nobody here has ever
complained.
> I can bet the * would present a problem in Code 39. If I can push
the
> whole issue off until after we are on 8.x (someday way off in the
> future) it will be much easier to deal with using the Crystal add-in
> when running against a BAQ generated XML file with the label info.
By
> then I might not be so averse to Code 128.
> -Todd C.
>
> ________________________________
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com> ] On
> Behalf Of Jasper Recto
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:48 PM
> To: 'vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:%27vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%27vantage%40yahoogroups.com> '
> Subject: RE: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
> Todd, we use code 39 but are looking into using Code 128 for one
reason
> only.
>
> We have part numbers that have lower and upper case letters, / ,\, -
,
> and *. These characters will not translate properly.
>
> Have you problems with this? If so, have been able to get around
this
> issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Jasper
>
> ________________________________
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Todd Caughey
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 2:41 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
> So far we have been able to dodge that bullet. Because of the
internal
> check digit calculations Code 128 is not as easy as a Code 39 font
> substitution. Usually specialized software is required and for our
> Report Builder based labeling that was not going to work. So far we
have
> gotten exemptions from all our customers asking for it....or done
Code
> 39 anyway and they might not even notice since most scanners will
pick
> that up too. If we ever have an absolute mandate to use it and the
> customer is large enough I have a Crystal add-in that someone in
this
> group pointed me to that will generate the values needed to go with
the
> Code 128 font in order for it to scan correctly....sort of like the
* in
> Code 39 but more complicated. Until then I am resisting Code 128 as
> strongly as I can.
> -Todd C.
>
> ________________________________
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%
40yahoogroups.com>] On
> Behalf Of melissa hietala
> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:28 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Vantage] Code 128 Barcode
>
> Is anyone using the "Code 128" barcode? We are looking to use this
> barcode in the near future, is there a way I can get this?
> Thanks,
> Dustin Biniek
> DustinB@... <mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com>
> <mailto:DustinB%40ultramc.com><mailto:DustinB%
40ultramc.com><mailto:Dust
> inB%40ultramc.com>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]