Upgrading to 5.0/5.1

Jonathan2708 · 2007-03-27

Hi,

Can anybody confirm for me what the upgrade possibilities are for moving to 5.0/5.1, or has this not been finalised yet?

I'm assuming any version from 4.00 onwards can be upgraded straight to 5.0 or 5.1, but we have a few customers on 3.60 and 3.70 - do these need to move to 4.00SP3 first?

Any help appreciated,

Jonathan

Alex_Chow · 2007-03-27

Nothing has been determined yet, so please don't promise something to your client that you may not be able to keep.

themave · 2007-03-27

from my perspective what is the difference, if you have to go from 3.6 to 4.0 to 5.0/5.1

It is all done at your office, client wouldn't know are care really, to him it would appear as 3.6 to 5.0

Now, I understand from your point of few it is more work, but you are just telling your clients if they are going to be able to upgrade, not how much it is going to cost, ( at least not yet)

from a client perspective, as long as they are paying support fees, that get the software, but still have to pay to actually upgrade, you could tell your 2.0 clients there is an upgrade path to 5.1, it will just be a few more steps for you

DenSter · 2007-03-27

Actually, Microsoft has said at Convergence that there will be no difference between 5.0 and 5.1 in functionality, so there is no reason to wait for 5.1 to upgrade. The 5.1 version may look dramatically different, but it should behave the same as 5.0. When you enter a Sell-to on a Sales Order in 5.1, the same fields get validated in the same way as in 5.0. The way you get to that Sales Order will be different though.

So, theoretically, as soon as you have the database upgraded to 5.0 it should be pretty straightforward to upgrade to 5.1 from there, since that would only be implementing the architecture.

Now, there are still some things that are unclear around how difficult it will be to transform the forms to the new client, particularly around certain types of forms, so don't make any assumptions about that. The transformation may still be quite a significant step, but Microsoft is saying that they will provide the tools to make it possible. What I have seen so far, they are doing a really good job.

DenSter · 2007-03-27

I do agree with Alex by the way. Don't promise anything to your customers yet. There is absolutely no way to know now how much effort will go into an upgrade to 5.1. My point is that when 5.0 comes out, you can upgrade right away, because it will be the same functionality as 5.1.

Alex_Chow · 2007-03-28

DenSter wrote:

I do agree with Alex by the way. Don't promise anything to your customers yet. There is absolutely no way to know now how much effort will go into an upgrade to 5.1. My point is that when 5.0 comes out, you can upgrade right away, because it will be the same functionality as 5.1.

That's an assumption.

Jonathan2708 · 2007-03-28

Many thanks for the replies. Looks like there is still a lot of things yet to be revealed about the upgrades.

Jonathan

DenSter · 2007-03-28

deadlizard wrote:

That's an assumption.

You're right it is

They actually said though *paraphrasing now* 'there is no reason to postpone an upgrade to wait for 5.1'.

Geert_Penners · 2007-03-28

Well, that's what can be expected from them, wouldn't it?

DenSter · 2007-03-28

I think that is a very skeptical approach though. I do believe that they are planning to keep the difference between 5.0 and 5.1 to a minimum, if it were only because they are to busy trying to get 5.1 ready in time to do anything significant. Besides, when you upgrade to 5.1, you have to upgrade the NAV objects first anyway, so that upgrade would be a 2 step process. One step to upgrade the NAV objects, and then the transformation of the forms to the .NET client pages, and some work on the reports.

Waldo · 2007-03-28

What they actually meant was: there is the same functionality/business logic in 5.0 then 5.1.

5.1 is a new client, so the pages has to be created from 5.0, but that's a step you have to do anyway. upgrading to the functionality of 5.0 of 5.1 is the same step.

again (indeed) this is still speculation O:)

<edit>
Ah ... Daniel was posting at the same time

DenSter · 2007-03-28

Let me put it this way: upgrading to 5.0 is not a waste of time if you want to eventually go to 5.1. There may be some additional form changes and/or report changes, but those will help in the transformation steps. There may be some bug fixes, but that will help solve issues, and those fixes would also be available for 5.0 customers. They are planning not to add any new NAV functionality between 5.0 and 5.1.

<edit> by the way, that is why only group 1 countries will get 5.0. By the time they get other country groups localized on 5.0, 5.1 is ready to be released. Group 2 and up will go straight to 5.1, which is functionally the same as 5.0 anyway.

Alex_Chow · 2007-03-28

Prime examples of how rumors will start...

Anyways, I'd only recommend an upgrade to the client if there are new functionality in the new version that they want that didn't exist in 1.x, 2.x, or 3.x. For example, the improved CRM features is a good reason to upgrade from 2.x to 5.x.

But doing it for technology alone seems like a bad business decision.

themave · 2007-03-28

DenSter wrote:

.... There may be some bug fixes, but that will help solve issues, and those fixes would also be available for 5.0 customers. ....5.1.

Are you sure about this, has it is not currently the case. I have 4.0 install (no service packs) if there is a bug fix, it is released for only for SP3, nothing earlier. I either have to upgrade to SP3, or have my solution center program the fix (at my cost) to the 4.0 database.

so, do you mean a fix with be released that can be directly applied to a 5.0 installation, or a fix that the solution center will have to program for the 5.0 user. (at an additional cost)

This is my problem with the whole Microsoft maintenance agreement, it doesn't really mean anything to me as an end user. as it is not worth it to upgrade our database for each SP that gets released, and if we don't, then we can't get any of the bug fixes. unless we pay to have them programmed for us.

themave · 2007-03-28

This is strickly from an end user prespective, but I can't see any reason someone would upgrade to 5.0 or 5.1, they should wait for at least 5.1 Service pack 1. If there is some new feature in 5.0 you need, you would be better off, paying your solution center to program it into your current database. so you have it now. without waiting for a 5.0/5.1.

If they don't, you know as soon as they go live with it, and have paid an arm and leg to upgrade their current database. the first SP with come out, and they will have to go through another mini upgrade expense to get the service pack applied. As all the objects will have to be compared to the current modified objects, to see what has to be done over again.

you should wait for at least the first service pack to be released, so you get the major bug fixes applied to your database on the first upgrade go around. Then you will only have to pay extra to have the bug fixes that are fixed in the SP2 and SP3 releases applied to your database.

Just my opinion anyways

Alex_Chow · 2007-03-28

themave wrote:

DenSter wrote:

.... There may be some bug fixes, but that will help solve issues, and those fixes would also be available for 5.0 customers. ....5.1.

Are you sure about this, has it is not currently the case. I have 4.0 install (no service packs) if there is a bug fix, it is released for only for SP3, nothing earlier. I either have to upgrade to SP3, or have my solution center program the fix (at my cost) to the 4.0 database.

so, do you mean a fix with be released that can be directly applied to a 5.0 installation, or a fix that the solution center will have to program for the 5.0 user. (at an additional cost)

This is my problem with the whole Microsoft maintenance agreement, it doesn't really mean anything to me as an end user. as it is not worth it to upgrade our database for each SP that gets released, and if we don't, then we can't get any of the bug fixes. unless we pay to have them programmed for us.

The software portion is between the end user and Microsoft. The service portion is between you and your solution center.

Microsoft provides the raw material, your solution center makes it into a finish good. You have to buy the raw material, and buy the service in order to make it into a finish good.

The benefit for your finish good is an improvement of the system. Additional functionalities plus all the reason why you chose Navision to be your ERP system in the first place.

Alex_Chow · 2007-03-28

themave wrote:

This is strickly from an end user prespective, but I can't see any reason someone would upgrade to 5.0 or 5.1, they should wait for at least 5.1 Service pack 1. If there is some new feature in 5.0 you need, you would be better off, paying your solution center to program it into your current database. so you have it now. without waiting for a 5.0/5.1.

If they don't, you know as soon as they go live with it, and have paid an arm and leg to upgrade their current database. the first SP with come out, and they will have to go through another mini upgrade expense to get the service pack applied. As all the objects will have to be compared to the current modified objects, to see what has to be done over again.

you should wait for at least the first service pack to be released, so you get the major bug fixes applied to your database on the first upgrade go around. Then you will only have to pay extra to have the bug fixes that are fixed in the SP2 and SP3 releases applied to your database.

Just my opinion anyways

You should really express that opinion to Microsoft directly. If it's really such a bad deal, then we would have a lot more complaints on this forum about this.

themave · 2007-03-28

deadlizard wrote:

...
You should really express that opinion to Microsoft directly. If it's really such a bad deal, then we would have a lot more complaints on this forum about this.

Most of the poster on this forum are developers and consultants, who make there living off of the fees. Most of the end users, get on ask their questions, and get off, some stick around for bit (few months) but not many. Some like me stick around longer, get comfortable expressing a view and state it. Most of the time, when I do, there is a lot of flack recieved, but I don't mind, but most people do. so they don't ask.

But lets be clear, the maintenance benefits Microsoft and the solution center, not the end user. because in most cases, the end user doesn't actually get the fix, instead the solution center gets the fix, and charges the user to install (program) downgrade ect to the end users system.

Now, you ask, why do I keep the maintenance, because I can't get new licenses without it. we have been having acquisitions, and need new licensing from time to time.

although I am still not so sure that is a good reason, as I ran the numbers on our upgrade cost from 2.0 to 4.0 that we did last year. so the maintanance ment I didn't have to pay for new navision license. but I did purchase new granuals, for new features, and paid to upgrade the database. it cost around 50K. and I paid 7 years of maintance fees of another 105K. so upgrading from 2.0 to 4.0 cost 155K

With the new business ready license for 30 users, my software cost would have been 120K, and I would have still have to pay my solution center to get my old data into the new system. so my cost would have been pretty close to the same. But I would have more granuls available because the business ready license advanced management includes more granuls then I have.

themave · 2007-03-28

I did express my feeling to Microsoft, and the response, in a polite way, was sorry to lose you.

My future plans are to finish the current maintance agreement, which ends in June, get copies of all the current releases software, I am entitled to, as well as a current license, to cover the latest version of 5.0 that is out at that time, purchase exta user licenses to cover future growth. and save the maintenace fee to pay my solution center for direct support.

since I have to pay them to apply any fixes anyways, why not cut out the middle man, in this case Microsoft

This is the reason I am sticking around the forum, is to gain as much knowledge as possible. I may pay maintenace one additional year, so I can get the 5.1 release, but that will depend on how much info is available on 5.1. And if I can get reasonably confident that 5.1 and the first service pack will be out by the following June.

kine · 2007-03-29

Do not forget that you can end in a problem for which you need to update your client. In this case you can find out that your license don't support this new client version and you can be in big troubles, mainly if the client is changed as much as NAV 5.0/5.1. I assume that there will be many servicepacks in first year and it is the time when you want to end your maintenance...

Alex_Chow · 2007-03-29

themave,

I do agree that 16% of your software cost annual is quite costly for a company using the product. However, a fee structure like this is common in the software industry.

For EDI, there's a software called Lexicom from Cleo, their annual enhancement is 20% of the software cost. The fee structure is the same if you purchased inferior software like MAS90, MAS200 or ACCPAC. Or even tier one softwares like SAP or Oracle. In the case of Lexicom, you HAVE to purchase the annual enhancement, or else the software won't work.

To defend Microsoft (not many people do these days), you can still use the software, purchase additional granules, make customizations, etc even if you're not current on the enhancement. That's saying a lot about the way Microsoft values their customer and their business.

Even worse is a company like Apple. If there's a new OS and you want to use it, you have to rebuy all of the software for the new OS because Apple does not have backwards compatibility. Then you're FORCED to upgrade and spend $3500 for the hardware and spend $6000 for the software, for ONE COMPUTER!

I know why customers may think it's highway robbery, but compared to the alternative, Microsoft is very, very good.

DenSter · 2007-03-29

:-k I don't mean to give anybody flak, but.....

It gets old after a while to see yet another thread being highjacked by this issue. The question was about upgrade to 5.0/5.1, not about the enhancement plan. If you want to discuss this, please start a new thread about that topic.

themave · 2007-03-29

DenSter wrote:

:-k I don't mean to give anybody flak, but.....

It gets old after a while to see yet another thread being highjacked by this issue. The question was about upgrade to 5.0/5.1, not about the enhancement plan. If you want to discuss this, please start a new thread about that topic.

I believe you have to take into account the impact of the enhancement plan and cost when considering the upgrade, so it is not highjacking a thread to suggest that all aspectes of the upgrade including the enhancement plan be taken into account.

Alex_Chow · 2007-03-29

Yeah, the upgrade is not just in technical terms, but for management and the users term as well.

Although the original poster's question was "Well, that's what can be expected from them, wouldn't it?" It can be interpreted as both technical, functional, and the monetary cost.

Unless I'm overanalyzing...

DenSter · 2007-03-30

themave wrote:

I believe you have to take into account the impact of the enhancement plan and cost when considering the upgrade, so it is not highjacking a thread to suggest that all aspectes of the upgrade including the enhancement plan be taken into account.

Yes you're right, and I do realize how much of an issue this is for many user organizations.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Upgrading to 5.0/5.1

Comments