Talk:Microsoft Dynamics GP/Archives/2012

Article Rewrite
Please post any idea's on how the modules section could be improved. It is original text, but I understand the issue with it sounding like a sales pitch. I have more documents I wish to upload to wikipedia and would appreciate some help in getting it right, but I can only spend a little time rewriting them.

Many Thanks,

M4 Systems 16:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
I have moved a large amount of criticisms into this section and deleted them from the article. In addition to being unreferenced, they are almost completely false.

'''Not true. Transactions are entered the same way anybody would at an ATM. The cents are automatically placed for you. The UI was built with the mouse in mind, but there are keyboard shortcuts for many of the windows.'''
 * Compared to a number of other accounting packages, the effort necessary to make simple entries is at least triple. For instance, the computer doesn't default to 00 cents, you must press the period.  The user must use the mouse extensively for address lookup, vendor look up, account look up, currency lookup, distribution look up etc.

'''Month end is well documented and is straightforward. Reconciliation is not a manual process as indicated above.'''
 * Month end tie out with payables is difficult. Reconciliation between the aging schedules and the GL must be done by hand, unless no description is entered in the distribution of the invoice.  If the description is left empty, GP will automatically enter accounts payable in the description which makes it easy to identify the entries in the aging that flowed to the GL.

'''FRx is a seperate product from GP. Adding new general ledgers does require work and training, but that is the case of any system merger, and is not unique to Dynamics GP'''
 * The account numbers have to be specified perfectly to cut income statements with FRX. This makes importing new GLS through acquisition difficult.  There is a way to group account numbers into categories, but they may only be grouped into one set of categories.  Thus only one style of financial reporting can be accommodated.

'''MS has over 50,000 installations of this software worldwide. Canada, the Caribbean, Europe, even alot of installs in Japan.'''
 * Don't try this in foreign countries. GP was never meant to go out of the U.S.

'''Transaction linking is itself a complicated process. The question of whether it is "worth" it or not comes down to the requirements of the company using it.'''
 * There is a transaction linking function that lets you keep track of fixes in the GL. So many windows and manipulations are necessary to use it that it's not worth it.

'''Project costing should be handled through the project accouting module. Multidimensional analysis is a poor substitute.'''
 * Project costing is possible through multidimensional analysis. However, each transaction has to be done individually, requiring more expensive accountants.

This provides a level of granularity in that each company's relationship with the vendor may be different and should not be considered one master record.
 * The aging schedule is class and database specific, not company specific. Thus a vendor that services more than one company in a database will mess up the aging.  The only solution: make many vendors that are really the same vendor and assign one to each company.

'''"Comparatively harder to use" - Compared to what? Multicurrency consideration are difficult for any account in any accounting program. GP provides all the tools necessary, but as anyone that has dealt with this knows, it is something that requires precision and care.'''
 * Multiple currencies are supported by GP, but they are comparatively harder to use. Also, integrating transactions with multiple currencies that default to the exchange rate lookup table requires going into the batch and clicking in and out of three windows without entering anything for the exchange rate to be entered in to the transaction.

1st Reference Link
The first reference link should realistically be to Microsoft's pricing, not to an independent vendor's "package" for small businesses. Would suggest changing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.112.183.110 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

''I looked into this and they are the exclusive provider of the pricing for North America and the only ones authorized by Microsoft. Microsoft redirects to that site as well.''


 * The Microsoft URL for this does no redirecting, and offers its own advice for finding providers -- if you can provide a link on the Microsoft site citing this Luna Development as the sole provider, and bla bla, then we can restore what otherwise appears to me, and the original poster of this section, as shilling for an independent vendor. The root page of purchasing and licenses at Microsoft Quaeler (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Notice the following pages
 * Luna's profile on Microsoft.com
 * Page showing links to Luna
 * Luna is Microsoft's vendor for small and mid sized businesses in North America.
 * Microsoft Luna —Preceding unsigned comment added by CChungg (talk • contribs) 01:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Seriously, sign your additions. Thanks) I still see nothing that makes Luna the sole provider of anything. Because they have a domain name with the word microsoft in it, and have registered with Microsoft as being service providers, doesn't make them _The_One_ that gets to be cited. (Plus you seem to have some sort of an agenda as has been revealed in your user talk page comments for JeremyA.) Quaeler (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This vendor is the only one offering the fixed price licensing. You may as well remove any reference to it in the article if you are not going to cite the source. --CChungg (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (Thanks for signing the edit). Spell it out for me please -- where does it say anywhere (outside of a Luna owned website), that they are the only vendor offering BRL. Also, how is not, for example, this another vendor? (Lastly, you should stop re-adding the link until there is consensus on this issue.) Quaeler (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All Dynamics GP authorized Microsoft partners offer Business Ready Licensing - it is the only way that new clients can purchase Dynamics GP now. In my opinion there shouldn't be any link to a "static" price on the systems, however, as the cost to implement them is significantly higher than just the software cost and extremely variable.  Luna is just one of hundreds of partners in North America that offer Dynamics GP systems.  Others include:
 * Callow & Associates (www.callow.ca)
 * Encore Business (www.encorebusiness.com)
 * ePartner Solutions (www.epartnersolutions.com)
 * Wennsoft Software (www.wennsoft.com)
 * Nofnnoln (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this issue is closed - no link; that lying scheisster shiller ended up getting his account suspended. Quaeler (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

POV of comments regarding POV
No this is not an advertisement, this is a proprietary product referenced to the maker's website, e.g. a Ford or Toyota automobile referenced to their company websites. The validity of the data is no less than biography versus autobiography in wikipedia articles of famous persons. Actually, I came to the wikipedia page because I needed a quick overview of the software and not the sales oriented PDF and Flash garbage on the manufacturers website and this article accomplishes that. If only Open Source Software bias was patrolled for. Shjacks45 (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)