Yes you'll install your 9.05 in a Server 08 environment and then do the
upgrade there straight fromm 8.03.409>
*Jose C Gomez*
*Software Engineer*
*
*
*
*T: 904.469.1524 mobile
E: jose@...
http://www.josecgomez.com
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/josecgomez> <http://www.facebook.com/josegomez>
<http://www.google.com/profiles/jose.gomez> <http://www.twitter.com/joc85>
<http://www.josecgomez.com/professional-resume/>
<http://www.josecgomez.com/feed/>
<http://www.usdoingstuff.com>
*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*
upgrade there straight fromm 8.03.409>
*Jose C Gomez*
*Software Engineer*
*
*
*
*T: 904.469.1524 mobile
E: jose@...
http://www.josecgomez.com
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/josecgomez> <http://www.facebook.com/josegomez>
<http://www.google.com/profiles/jose.gomez> <http://www.twitter.com/joc85>
<http://www.josecgomez.com/professional-resume/>
<http://www.josecgomez.com/feed/>
<http://www.usdoingstuff.com>
*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?*
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:49 PM, <jdaniel1127@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> so i can go from 8.03.408b straight to 9.05? have 408b on server 2003.
> when do i need to upgrade to server 2008, before i upgrade to 9.05?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jose@...
> To: "Vantage" <vantage@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:45:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: 8.03.410
>
>
>
> Don't install 9.04 use the data upgrade too to go strauight to 9.5
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdaniel1127@...
> Sender: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:38:46
> To: < vantage@yahoogroups.com >
> Reply-To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Vantage] Re: 8.03.410
>
> saw 409 and didn't see anything it would fix for us. didn't know there was
> a 410. currently on 408B progress and doing a test server upgrade to 9.05..
> got to the point of installing 9.04 and when i run admin for the first
> conversion i get an error on the gl books cv\cvgl007 and Epicor says there
> is some sort of patch I need, been waiting 2 weeks.....
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elizabeth" < gracefulthreads@... >
> To: vantage@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:46:41 AM
> Subject: [Vantage] Re: 8.03.410
>
>
>
> Sue,
>
> I'm helping out another company in their upgrade from 8.03.305K all the
> way up to 9.05.700C. They are on Progress, and the database is about 4G.
>
> The first pass went pretty smoothly. Using the Data Upgrade Utility, it
> took about half a day to go to 410, about a full day to get to the DUU 9.04
> level, and then another full day to get up to 9.05.700C. No enormous errors
> that I know of, and we're going to do another pass next week. I've
> recommended we upgrade their live system to the 410 level, but that may not
> be an option (too many of their reports are ODBC and need to be re-written
> for every new version of Progress).
>
> I only found a few errors in the instructions in the DUU manual, and
> Epicor tech support told me about a big documentation error going from the
> 9.04 level to 9.05... I don't have my notes here but I can put it up when I
> get back there late next week.
>
> Ernie Lowell
> Diba INdustries
>
> --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "snielsen28" <snielsen.hipco@...> wrote:
> >
> > Another update on 8.03.410...
> >
> > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "snielsen28" <snielsen.hipco@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Update for anyone interested in the 8.03.410 service pack...
> > >
> > > 1. Saving an RMA receipt produces an unexpected error, see appserver
> logs which says a valid warehouse is required (yes there is a valid
> warehouse showing in the receipt); service call placed last Friday, no
> answer yet.
> > Update...SCR 100127 has been created and is targeted for 8.03.411. I
> have been notified that a one-off fix for 8.03.410 has been requested.
> >
> > > 2. Multiple issues with partial shipments and multiple packing slips
> from jobs appear to be fixed!
> >
> > > 3. Unknown GL when processing sales kits thru counter sales (fixed
> with a one-off in 409A) is still broken in 410.
> > Update...I have received a one-off fix for this.
> >
> > > 4. Hidden columns being displayed in multi-company dashboards (fixed
> with one-off in 409A) is still broken in 410.
> > Update...further testing showed that hidden columns momentarily appear
> when the dashboard is refreshing, however once all grids have refreshed,
> the hidden columns behave themselves and stay hidden.
> >
> >
> > > 5. Can't post negative AP misc charges (fixed with one-off in 409A) is
> fixed in 410.
> >
> > > 6. Can't post negative AR misc charges (fixed with one-off in 409A) is
> still broken in 410.
> > Update...A one-off for 8.03.410 has been requested.
> >
> > > 7. Labor entry grid can't handle rapid posting (fixed with one-off in
> 409A) is reported to be fixed in 410, although I haven't tested that.
> >
> > > 8. Multi-company dashboard don't bring up 2nd company info if more
> than one query w/same table in dashboard (fixed with one-off in 409A) is
> still broken in 410.
> > Update...I received a one-off for 8.03.410.
> >
> > > 9. "Value does not match mask" errors in customer tracker causing a
> need to run conversion 9527 every week or so (fixed with one-off in 409A)
> is reported to be fixed in 410 (no problems when testing 410).
> >
> > > 10. Cash receipts entry allows out of balance to be posted if an
> invoice payment with misc amt is posted is fixed in 410.
> >
> > > 11. Part Advisor doesn't show an order line as ordered if it's added
> from "new line from quote" option in order entry has been fixed in 410.
> >
> > > 12. Master Production Schedule that wouldn't run has been fixed in
> 410.
> >
> > > 13. Sales order misc charges being multiplied by number of lines in
> order (fixed with one-off in 409A) is still broken in 410.
> > Update...a one-off for 8.03.410 has been requested for this.
> >
> > > 14. Finance charges being calculated on invoice amounts rather than
> invoice balances (fixed with a one-off in 409A) is still broken in 410.
> > Update...I received a one-off for 8.03.410 for this.
> >
> > Anyone else have any testing results from 8.03.410? I'm hoping I get the
> last 3 one-off fixes and that no additional "big bugs" show up in 8.03.410.
> It would make testing and eventually converting to Epicor 9 much easier if
> my production db was the same version as the conversion jump-off point!
> I've been told the data upgrade utility included with 9.05.700 for
> 8.03.409C to 9.05.700 also works with 8.03.410 to 9.05.700. From what I
> understand, some behind-the-scenes work has been done in 8.03.410 to
> improve the upgrade to Epicor 9. That could be why it took so long to
> release 8.03.410. The data upgrade utility worked smoothly from 8.03.409C
> to 9.05.700 although it took longer than the other conversions I tested. I
> never could get the original data upgrade utility to work and the long
> route thru 9.04 had some errors and bad instructions to struggle with
> (searching the group got me thru that!). Next step will be running the data
> upgrade utility from 8.03.410 to Epicor 9.05.700 and seeing how that
> compares. I received some help from an Epicor tech to get my database
> settings optimized to get the most from the old server I'm using for
> converting and testing Epicor 9 that may help the time factor. Also,
> hopefully making the jump from 410 instead of 409C also helps.
> >
> > Sue
> >
> > >
> > > Sure wish more of our one-off fixes would have been included with the
> 410 release instead of being rescheduled for 411.
> > >
> > > 411??? hahahahahaha!!!
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , "snielsen28" <snielsen.hipco@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm testing it now. So far...4 of our SCRs fixed with 1-off fixes in
> 409A are broken in 410, 1 of our SCRs with 1-off fix in 409A is fixed in
> 410, 1 other SCR fixed in 410. I haven't done any thorough testing with
> shipping which 410 claims to have fixed. Just ran into an error with RMAs
> (can't do an RMA receipt, get unexpected error-see applogs, which tells me
> that a valid warehouse is required, HUH?). At this point I'm not sure why
> it took over 2 years for 410 to be released! Many calls that were targeted
> for 410 are now targeted for 411...does anyone think they'll ever be a 411?
> I'll try to post another update within the next few days and let you know
> how things are going.
> > > >
> > > > Sue
> > > >
> > > > --- In vantage@yahoogroups.com , Vic Drecchio <vic.drecchio@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anyone applied it yet? I just saw it's available... Any issues
> or concerns?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]