I’m talking about these options. I’m mainly using Apps (Erp.UI) but my coworker started an app as a Dashboard (Ice.UIDbd) and it seems to work exactly the same. I’m wondering if there is any advantage or inconvenients by using one or the other. I don’t want to be stuck somewhere down the line because I didn’t choose the correct type when creating my apps because I know you can’t change the type after
Thanks!
Same question. Anyone?
Also the next option about prefix (Erp or Ice) - does that matter either?
Complete guess here.
I imagine it drives the base plumbing of the form. Events, bindings, etc.
Not sure but I think @Chris_Conn is right. Hmm, our list is smaller:
They just have configuator licensed.
Noticed that but we also have Configurator, we haven’t migrated them to Kinetic yet though.
Wait a minute, @hmwillett reacted with 
?
I assume this means that it is not very consequential?
Because this is exactly my fear:
I did notice that the Dashboard type is a more blank slate, while “Apps” gives you a template of a landing page and tabs and a couple pages.
But I don’t see either one having any events or data views built in. (TransView and initializing it would be a nice gesture…)
I don’t have the interest patience to investigate any of the other ones.
Haven’t cared enough to find out.
Sometimes it be like that.
No that’s great.
Well, what’s your go-to then?
“Apps” and Erp.UI?
You’re assuming I’ve taken the time to actually create an app, lol.
I think I’ve used that maybe once?
What’s the alternative?
So probably not much then.
Spend your time uplifting screens that already exist.
Y’all have no idea how much customization ABCCode has gotten over the years to demo stuff. 
I’m fond of the method of “take flamethrower to it and start over from scratch.”
Even still, I guess your “uplifts” are based on classic dashboards, but converted to Kinetic?
On a separate ramble…
While this is true-ish, I just realized that all of that is in the Base layer. When I went to make a layer for my “Apps,” it was as barren as the “Dashboard” template.
Ugh, I’m not going to make an app without a layer.
But I hate making tabs manually. I still have not got the hang of that.
Generally, yes, but it depends on what people need me to do.
Right now, most folks exist in a Classic-converting-to-Kinetic state, so uplifting is more common of a task than creation. I’m sure I’ll go down that road eventually. Maybe even look into it tomorrow if I get bored. WHO KNOWS?
My go to has been Apps and Ice.UI. Don’t know if it makes a difference, but it’s nice when looking at the programs out there - the Ice makes it stick out a little more as not part of the core Epicor functionality.
Just want to add that knowing the difference would help a great deal. We have a client where uplifting is NOT an option because the customizations are too complex. I was told by support to create them manually. For this customer I’m working on… over 250+ ud fields on part master alone.
There are a lot of screen customizations that use a UD screen as a base and were not bound by a dataview which is not a big deal, just use BAQs or function calls. But needless to say I at least, have to create mine manually.
The screen I’m using as a testing ground has 3 grids powered by BAQs.
So I created both types. First using wizard and it gave me a dashboard. So it has the one page with a dashboard type. Easy enough I guess. I have to add more though, so is it limited to this one page?
I created another one using the App and it gave me a landing page, Main and Detail and Activity. Since I didn’t need all the pages (because of the nature of the records) I deleted the Main, Activity and Detail pages leaving only the landing page. I was able to show what I needed here. Both these versions on BASE.
So what is the difference? Is there some sort of navigation capability the APP has the dashboard doesn’t? I’m also curious if this is not the way to use the APP page type and I mutilated it, but it let me!
