Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply

Questions regarding conversion of ACT!2004 databases and calendaring in ACT!2009, v11.1

Copper Contributor
Posts: 29
Country: USA

Questions regarding conversion of ACT!2004 databases and calendaring in ACT!2009, v11.1

Among other things, Sage reports that ACT!2009 is improved versus ACT!2008 in data import/conversion from earlier ACT! versions (especially in the newly released version 11.1, I believe) and calendaring. I purchased ACT!2008 about a year ago but have been forced to continue using ACT!2004 because of “deal killing” limitations in these areas. So:

  1. Can ACT!2004 “Regarding/Details” fields with more than 50 characters be imported into ACT!2009 in their entirety (ACT!2008, as I recall, truncates these fields after 50 characters)?

  2. Can ACT!2004 MS-WORD merge templates that contain WORD tables be converted for use in ACT!2009 (it is my understanding that imbeded tables prevented the import into ACT!2008 of nearly 40 such ACT!2004 templates that I have been using for several years now)?

  3. Do the printed monthly calendars in ACT!2009 show the time of a scheduled appointment, the full contact name of the person involved in the appointment, and at least a few words from the “Regarding” field for the appointment (as in ACT!2004)? If so, has Sage reduced the ledding between the printed lines to allow the listing of 7 or 8 appointments (at least) in a given day's cell (also doable in ACT!2004)? As I recall, I wasn't able to fit more than about 4 appointments per day in the ACT!2008 printed monthly calendar, which is simply inadequate for my needs. Are there any screen shots of the “improved” ACT!2009 monthly calendar on the ACT! website that would answer my questions (I've looked all over, but in vein..)

Thanks for any information pertinent to these areas.

Copper Contributor
Posts: 29
Country: USA

Re: Questions regarding conversion of ACT!2004 databases and calendaring in ACT!2009, v11.1

The silence is deafening...I'll take that as a "No" to all questions...
Moderator
Posts: 4,395
Country: USA

Re: Questions regarding conversion of ACT!2004 databases and calendaring in ACT!2009, v11.1

1.  You should be converting the database, not importing the DBF.  I just converted a 6.0 database and didn't run into this problem.

2.  I was able to convert Word templates with tables.

3.  Unfortunately, the calendar functions the same in ACT! 2008 and 2009.

Copper Contributor
Posts: 29
Country: USA

Re: Questions regarding conversion of ACT!2004 databases and calendaring in ACT!2009, v11.1

Just to set things straight:

 

1) I used Red Flags to prepare my ACT!6 database prior to conversion. The "Information" tab in Red Flags clearly states:

 

- Under "Problem Description": Drop-Down item Exceeds 40 Characters

 

- Under "Explanation": Field has a Drop-Down that contains one or more entries which exceed 40 characters.

 

- Under "Possible Resolution": The conversion process will truncate longer drop down  items to 40 characters.  Recommend you shorten these entries or re-enter long items after conversion.

 

Over the years using ACT!6, I created over 400 legitimate items in this particular dropdown list, most of which are significantly greater than 40 characters in length. It's really mind boggling trying to understand why Sage would choose to truncate items with so few characters. If you're working with anything more complex than simple product names, 40 characters doesn't go to far. And fixing 400+ dropdown entries one by one would take an eternity. So why set such a low,  arbitrary truncation point -- I thought the conversion process was supposed to save the enduser the tedious task of having to hand-convert records?? You might want to review the Red Flags program to learn about a number of other things the conversion program won't convert properly...

 

2) Regarding conversion of Word templates, congratulations. Maybe there's another unstated arbitrary limit to how many cells can be in the converted table templates. Obviously, your (probably very simplistic) model template differs from mine...

 

So, let this be a big alert for any users contemplating converting an ACT!6 database with the characteristics described in my earlier post...