Andrew,
Clients are a mix of XP Pro and Vista, with Server 2008 on the backend. No Win 7 yet (waiting for SP1, ironic I know!).
Mike,
I didn't say Microsoft exhaustively tests, I simply said Epicor doesn't.
I have had very few issues with Microsoft hotfixes and service packs. You have a point, they may have invented service packs and hotfixes <tangent> Not so sure it's fair to say Microsoft invented hotfixes, the term "patch" stems from punch card days </tangent>), and the $64,000 question is, why were those fixes necessary in the first place? But in my experience, those fixes did in fact "fix" without breaking previously "good" functionality. I have had very bad luck with Symantec "fixes". Liveupdate is definately disabled.
It is not my intention to vehemently defend Microsoft, but I think on the whole, they have a good support model. The knowledgebase is free, and they sponsor Technet and MSDN, and all sorts of blogs with moderators / posters directly employed by Microsoft. If you need to escalate an issue, and open a ticket with a Microsoft engineer, the costs are not exorbitant.
In my opinion, by disabling Automatic Updates, you do so at your own peril. With all the security exploits out there (yeah I know, why are they out there?), and more discovered everyday, you're better off applying the high priority updates rather then be left exposed. Unless of course you can eliminate internet access. If you deploy a Windows Server Update Services server, you can select the product lines and levels you want updated with a good deal of granularity. But to each his own.
I think we can all agree that when you introduce vast amounts of complexity, previously unforseen interactions will occur. These issues are general to software development, and no vendor is immune. Software fixes aren't going away anytime soon. It's been my experience that certain vendors tackle the issue of continued support after the sale better than others. While they are certainly not at the top of my list, Microsoft ranks higher relative to Epicor on my personal list.
Jared
Clients are a mix of XP Pro and Vista, with Server 2008 on the backend. No Win 7 yet (waiting for SP1, ironic I know!).
Mike,
I didn't say Microsoft exhaustively tests, I simply said Epicor doesn't.
I have had very few issues with Microsoft hotfixes and service packs. You have a point, they may have invented service packs and hotfixes <tangent> Not so sure it's fair to say Microsoft invented hotfixes, the term "patch" stems from punch card days </tangent>), and the $64,000 question is, why were those fixes necessary in the first place? But in my experience, those fixes did in fact "fix" without breaking previously "good" functionality. I have had very bad luck with Symantec "fixes". Liveupdate is definately disabled.
It is not my intention to vehemently defend Microsoft, but I think on the whole, they have a good support model. The knowledgebase is free, and they sponsor Technet and MSDN, and all sorts of blogs with moderators / posters directly employed by Microsoft. If you need to escalate an issue, and open a ticket with a Microsoft engineer, the costs are not exorbitant.
In my opinion, by disabling Automatic Updates, you do so at your own peril. With all the security exploits out there (yeah I know, why are they out there?), and more discovered everyday, you're better off applying the high priority updates rather then be left exposed. Unless of course you can eliminate internet access. If you deploy a Windows Server Update Services server, you can select the product lines and levels you want updated with a good deal of granularity. But to each his own.
I think we can all agree that when you introduce vast amounts of complexity, previously unforseen interactions will occur. These issues are general to software development, and no vendor is immune. Software fixes aren't going away anytime soon. It's been my experience that certain vendors tackle the issue of continued support after the sale better than others. While they are certainly not at the top of my list, Microsoft ranks higher relative to Epicor on my personal list.
Jared
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Best" <abest@...> wrote:
>
> What are you guys running? Windows 98? Vista and Win 7 have had very few issues.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Best
>
> Kice Industries, Inc.
>
> P(316)744-7151
>
> F(316)295-2412
>
>
>
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Vic Drecchio
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:03 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Skipping Maintenance Renewal
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike... hahaha...... I soooooo agree with you.
>
> I turn off Automatic Updates.
>
> And wait, didn't Microsoft invent the term "Service Pack" and "Hotfix"?
>
> I believe so.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Mike Lowe
> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 1:27 PM
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vantage%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Vantage] Re: Skipping Maintenance Renewal
>
> Microsoft tests exhaustively prior to release? Since when? I may be unique here, but I've had FAR more issues with software breaks coming from Microsoft updates (all product lines) than from updates from Epicor. But then, this could be related to the number of updates MS releases to fix it's buggy, bloated software.
>
> I'm just sayin...
>
--- In vantage@yahoogroups.com, "k99ja04" <jallmond@...> wrote:
>
> No, upgrades / implementation are extra. Many on here (myself included) are frustrated that each update is not exhaustively tested prior to release. It is not uncommon for an update to break something that was previously fixed. You can't think of Epicor's updates like Service Packs from Microsoft. Each upgrade may only be a small step according to their versioning scheme, but you really need to have a sandbox test environment to test all the functionality and your reports before going live. We're on 8.03.408B, and are still waiting for inventory adjustments on pack slips to work when shipped from manufactured inventory. This should have worked from the beginning, and if I drop maintenance, and it's fixed in 409, then I miss out. Epicor should take a lesson from Microsoft and treat this as a patch/hotfix.
>
> That being said, I am very happy with the level of support I receive when I open a specific trouble ticket. I don't know what the earmarked funds breakdown is for upgrades versus per incident support, but I wound prefer to pay for each ticket as I need, and for each upgrade as I need it. Epicor could offer an upgrade license, where the pricing would be appropriate to what my current version it, to how many leaps up the ladder I want to go. Hmmmm, seems like I've seen that model before... oh yeah Microsoft! Listening Epicor?
>