Navision 3.60B

Dave_Cintron · 2008-12-11

I can't recall what this release was and I can't find any reference to it on PartnerSource - can somebody fill me in and does anybody have it available?

Savatage · 2008-12-11

Database Archive for Microsoft Dynamics NAV
https://mbs.microsoft.com/Cms/Templates/document/General.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID={36D52ACD-DF6D-4D7E-8136-6DF32DEDA27A}&NRORIGINALURL=/partnersource/downloads/migrationtools/databasearchiveformicrosoftnavisionna.htm?printpage=false&NRCACHEHINT=Guest&printpage=false

Looks like they have 3.60, 3.60a, 3.6 improvements then it goes right to 3.7.
If i recall 3.6 didn't stick around too long before they fixed a bunch of problems and called it 3.7

I don't know what's happening with the url thing so you're gonna have to copy & paste the link

Dave_Cintron · 2008-12-11

Thank you for the link to the Database Archive but as I said THERE IS NO REFERENCE to any 3.6 B version. 3.6 was the last Navision A/S version and 3.7 was the FIRST Microsoft version, basically just to label it Microsoft.

Does anybody remember or have a link or have Navision Attain 3.6B please???

David_Singleton · 2008-12-11

3.60B is odd.

I remember when 3.60 was the current version that there always seemed to be some confusion about the version.

3.10 had lots of fixes, (especially related to inventory costing and tax rounding issues causing consistency errors when posting sales orders). And at that time there did not seem to be a proper numbering structure.

When 3.60 came out I am pretty sure there were 2 service packs, which should have been therefore 3.60A and 3.60B. But when I was trying to document all this in the Navision 3.60 - Navision wiki and then couldn't find a proper reference to that second service pack.

I am also not sure if maybe 3.60B was just an internal US terminology for the sales tax rounding fixes that were done.

Anyway if you do figure it out, you could help me by updating the wiki entry.

Savatage · 2008-12-11

:-k

https://mbs.microsoft.com/knowledgebase ... QZMVKZ#kb1

David_Singleton · 2008-12-11

That is hot fix 2 for 3.60 prior to the first service pack (3.60A)

This object:

Codeunit        5802 Inventory Posting To G/L          07/26/02    12:00:00 PM 
               42988 NAVW13.60.00.02

I found in an old 3.60 database.

We would want to find an object with

NAVW13.60.02

in the version number.

I can't even find a US object like (NAVUS13.60.02) so I really think that the 3.60B terminology may have been a name thrown around for what eventually became 3.70.

DenSter · 2008-12-11

I don't recall a 3.6B either. If there is no mention of it in the database archive, then there is no record of it. Are you sure it's an official release and not someone going in and manually changing it to 3.6B after implementing their own 'improvements'?

Dave_Cintron · 2008-12-12

AFAIK there were two 3.6 service packs, "A" and "B". Can't track down "B". I'm guessing this was possibly quashed because it was released after the acquisition and overwritten by 3.7?

David_Singleton · 2008-12-12

Dave Cintron wrote:

AFAIK there were two 3.6 service packs, "A" and "B". Can't track down "B". I'm guessing this was possibly quashed because it was released after the acquisition and overwritten by 3.7?

I think that this is probably what happened. I was in the middle of a very big 3.60 implementation where we had lots of issues, and we were continually getting hot fixes to get around this. Definitely I rememeber them refering to 3.60B as the second service pack.

In the end we had so many problems we had to wait for the release of 3.70, and did an upgrade mid implementation.

So as I said earlier, I think they rolled those fixes into 3.70 along with the new change log and called it 3.70.

Dave_Cintron · 2008-12-12

Yes, I believe you're right, but I know that somewhere, someone has the 3.6B service pack. Perhaps Bill took it with him when he retired, or it's buried in cement under a goal post in Fargo.

David_Singleton · 2008-12-12

Dave Cintron wrote:

...or it's buried in cement under a goal post in Fargo.

Naah that would be the Giant's Stadium in Jersey

Savatage · 2008-12-12

Speaking of the GGGG-Men! - I can't wait till the put the smackdown on Dallas' candy asses! =D> =P~

DenSter · 2008-12-12

Do you think that game was planned at the end of the season on purpose, to let the Romo-Owens relationship simmer for a while?

Go G-MEN! (Lions? Who are the Lions?)

Navision 3.60B

Comments

Categories