I thought I'd add that for those who remember the change from ACT! 2.0 to the first release by Symantec with 3.0 (a re-write to support XP), the issues and questions were nearly the same (actually 3.0 was worse than 7.0)... but the results of the pain with 3.0 was that Symantec found some good guys and by 5.0 it had won back all the users and many more.
I guess that with a product that is as complex as ACT! and with as many users operating it in diverse ways, combining a complete re-write with a change in management leaves no way to avoid the teething issues.
It has taken a long time, but now with the direction I've seen in the development and the willingness of senior level staff like yourself, Pierre and Dave making themselves more accessible to the user base, it justifies my decision to stay with this product I have used and supported for over 20 years.
I thought I'd add that for those who remember the change from ACT! 2.0 to the first release by Symantec with 3.0 (a re-write to support XP), the issues and questions were nearly the same (actually 3.0 was worse than 7.0)... but the results of the pain with 3.0 was that Symantec found some good guys and by 5.0 it had won back all the users and many more.
I guess that with a product that is as complex as ACT! and with as many users operating it in diverse ways, combining a complete re-write with a change in management leaves no way to avoid the teething issues.
It has taken a long time, but now with the direction I've seen in the development and the willingness of senior level staff like yourself, Pierre and Dave making themselves more accessible to the user base, it justifies my decision to stay with this product I have used and supported for over 20 years.
Thanks
Mike Lazarus