05-26-2008 05:44 AM
Longtime Act user. Using 6 today. Couple years ago, "upgraded" to version 2005-2007 -- horribly slow and buggy. Couldn't understand how company could go "backwards". I swore I would "never upgrade Act again".
Read below review on Amazon - suggests that Act 2008 "might be back" ? - also looks like Act finally launched a functional forum.
Should I upgrade ? Thanks !
I have used ACT! since the first DOS version came out over 14 years ago. Yes, ACT! had serious problems from 2005-2007, which is why I stopped recommending it after version 6. After spending 3 months living in the new ACT! 2008, I am thrilled with version 10 (2008) and can highly recommend it. http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000TMFVEY/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpo...
05-26-2008 07:33 AM - edited 05-26-2008 07:37 AM
it's the same with us: Act-user since 1997 (2.**). Upgraded few times. Act 2005 was killing so I went back to Act 6.
A month ago started with Act 10 because Act 6 gave problems since I got Vista.
Very satisfied Act 10, only missing the dialer and maybe that will work within some weeks. And the SQL-database has grown huge (90MB for 4.000 contacts) but that's cleared by new hardware and memory :-)
05-26-2008 07:44 AM
Yes, ACT! is back. Not much for me to say that's not already covered in that review, since I wrote it
I will say that since the time I wrote that review a month ago, I have now installed ACT! 10 (2008) in several clients' offices, all with 10-20 users, and they are as thrilled with it as I am. Sage had some growing pains when they first acquired the product, but all the significant bugs from 2005-2007 are gone. The new teaming and privacy features as well as tight integration with Outlook email are welcomed upgrades. I don't think you will be disappointed!
05-26-2008 10:07 AM - edited 05-26-2008 10:15 AM
Thanks for input - but I'm still "leery" - bunch of people trashing speed, stability, and support of Act 10:
Is there commitment to restore the dialer in 10 ? I actually use that all day long.
Are Goldmine or Salesforce.com my only other options ? I just don't have the energy or patience to try another Act "upgrade" - I regret it every time.
05-28-2008 11:48 AM
Any suggestions for another program would be greatly appreciated. I never should've upgraded. Since 5/22 I've been trying to deal with the speed of rescheduling activities, and have spoken to 4 tech support people. The first one got the rescheduling down from 35 seconds/per activity to 7-10 seconds. That's still unacceptable. In addition, I can't drag and drop multiple activities.
I would rather go through the hassle of doing a one-time conversion to another program and be able to get on with my life. I've used ACT! since 1991 or earlier, but now I have to change. Rescheduling activities is far to cumbersome to be able to have a productive day.
PLEASE, any suggestions for another program would be greatly appreciated.
05-28-2008 01:10 PM
The first one got the rescheduling down from 35 seconds/per activity to 7-10 seconds. That's still unacceptable.
It sounds to me like you have some serious issues with your computer that have nothing to do with ACT! I just rescheduled several activities on my calendar in order to time the process - took less than a second each.
05-28-2008 01:15 PM
Computer is 2 weeks old ~ brand new. 2GHz processor. Tech Support took over the computer twice and checked everything. Said it all has to do with SQL. From what I've read online at Amazon.com, I'm not the only one disgusted with ACT! You seem to be one of the fortunate ones.
Thanks for the reply,
05-28-2008 01:31 PM
05-28-2008 08:38 PM
Thanks so much for seeing if you can help me out. My computer has 1.99 GB RAM. The two Tech people who took over my computer to see if they could help me out said it's probably as a result of SQL. Both were unable to help me out. I was on with another person this morning for over an hour. He didn't take over the computer, but he went through all kinds of things to see if he could fix it. It ended up that he'll note what happened, but couldn't promise a callback.