RE: Why did you choose BPCS -- BPCS-L

Boy, this "Why did you choose BPCS?" thread is creating a stir. Way to go
Dan.

Regarding Paul King's comments regarding Client/Server, SSA may be heading
in a direction more favorable to his tastes. In V6.1 Full Client/Server COM
goes away and is replaced by either green screen ORD700 or the screen
scraper flavor (AKA Thin Client). Don't know their intentions for CEA, OLM
and ECM. Because of accountants love for spreadsheets, keeping CEA in
Windows may make sense as data can be readily pasted back and forth. GUI
ORD700 looks remarkably similar to COM.

My experience with users is that they generally tend to like the speed and
efficiency of the green screen. Those that favor  GUI do so because they can
resize the columns, change the fonts and background colors, and rearrange
the column order of grid data. I've seen a few start with Windows then go
back to green screen, and have one client right now who really likes the
improved 6.1 "CUI" or Configurable User Interface. I'm a software slut and
easily hop in the sack with either one.

UNIX and Client/Server are not synonymous so chasing the UNIX market doesn't
necessarily require SSA to create full CS Windows clients. If they choose,
they could run green screen in a terminal emulator just as easily--and did
in V5.1 and V5.2. The main reasons for going UNIX should have been to
leverage customers existing experience and investment in their UNIX platform
or UNIX based databases. Ever notice that most of the UNIX customers are
outside of the US?


Geo.


George Sagen
BPCS Application Consultant
gsagen@primesourcetech.com <mailto:gsagen@primesourcetech.com>
http://www.primesourcetech.com
PrimeSource Technologies
7373 East Doubletree Ranch Road
Suite 150
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
(801)360-6360 Direct & VM
�


.  -----Original Message-----
.  From: uucp@Uucp1.mcs.net [mailto:uucp@Uucp1.mcs.net]On Behalf Of Paul
.  King
.  Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 2:59 PM
.  To: BPCS-L@midrange.com
.  Subject: RE: Why did you choose BPCS
.
.
.  You have just described to me what I've been thinking for years - and to
.  have come from an end user is interesting from my perspective - I thought
.  the world was going mad.....
.  Client server, for high volume transaction systems is high cost
.  and delivers
.  no benefit.
.  And even if benefits are thought to exist (I know many who do THINK it
.  delivers benefit!) this is likely wiped out by the cost of mega bandwidth
.  required, high installation costs (new / bigger PC's, memory etc), mega
.  rollout costs (applying a bug fix is a major organisational event with
.  client server - it used to be simple!!!) - I could go on.
.
.  Now you, an end used says "the more fancy GUI screens are no
.  longer a high
.  priority with me." - I'm interested in why you say this now and
.  moreover why
.  they ever were?
.
.  We use BPCS mixed mode. The most problematic modules (and costly to
.  implement / maintain) needless to say are the fat bits that we
.  use, COM and
.  OLM. The rest works, of a fashion. True, we run our business on
.  it, but it
.  takes more support now than ever.
.
.  I have worked with BPCS for 11 years. I first used V2.something
.  on a S/38,
.  and now V6.00.02 on AS/400 V602 - and many V's in-between. I have to say
.  that I once swore by BPCS - it had bugs sure, all software does,
.  but it was
.  stable, realiable, fairly efficient, accuarte in the most part
.  and genuinely
.  added value to the organisation I worked for at the time. The IT dept had
.  time to help the business use more of BPCS, and in turn more benefit was
.  delivered - all without a PC in sight. Today I'm not so sure this is the
.  case. With every release I've worked on we've been promised more (i.e.
.  another module at a cost), but the core system (INV, MRP, SFC etc) is at
.  best unchanged and more often gets worse. IT are absorbed in keeping the
.  system running - and there is no impetus on the part of the
.  business to use
.  any more of the system - they've had enough too!
.
.  I'm sure BPCS isn't the worst on the market, but my point is
.  that things are
.  getting worse - not better - at a time when we're all being told that
.  systems are getting better, more advanced, deliver more benefit,
.  integrate
.  with our business "processes" and other trash like that.
.
.  It seems to me that SSA have forgotten their customer base and
.  gone to fry
.  bigger fish - chasing unix customers and providing a C/S solution was not
.  (in my experience) what their REAL customer base wanted. I'm
.  just waiting to
.  see if they survive as they are, and at the moment I'd not wager on it.
.
.  Paul.
.
.
.  At 09:16 10/06/99 -0400, you wrote:
.  >We are not a BPCS user now and probably not a prospect, so I
.  don't want to
.  >take up too much mail list bandwidth here.  I just an end-user
.  of another
.  >ERP system that follows mail lists for BPCS, JDE, JBA and SAP and I'm
.  >intrigued by the trials and tribulations of other users.
.  >
.  >We use JBA on an AS/400, which is far from perfect, but is
.  pretty stable and
.  >performs decently for Distribution and Financials.  We don't do any
.  >manufacturing.  The funny thing is that I really wanted a Client/Server
.  >solution when shopping for ERP systems in June 1997 and yet
.  that seems to be
.  >the biggest problem with BPCS and JDEdwards.  I find it funny
.  how many JDE
.  >sites are turning to MS Terminal Server to solve WAN problems.
.  JBA has a
.  >simple GUI screen scraper front end which runs on plain TCP/IP
.  which over
.  >time is looking better and better to me.  They developed some
.  Visual Basic
.  >front ends to their programs, but they were never released to
.  user base due
.  >to performance problems.  They are developing some Java
.  front-ends now, but
.  >the more fancy GUI screens are no longer a high priority with
.  me.  We looked
.  >at BPCS some in 97, but they didn't seem that interested in wholesale
.  >distributors.
.  >
.  >Prior to my message prompting a few users to "come to the
.  defense" of BPCS,
.  >I had never heard any user or vendor say anything positive about BPCS.
.  >
.  >Now I'll go back to being a silent observer of the proceedings and leave
.  >everyone to solve their business needs.
.  >
.  >Dan Thomas
.  >Sr. VP Information Systems
.  >Medical Distribution, Inc.
.  >4500 Progress Blvd
.  >Louisville, KY  40218-5058
.  >Phone (502) 454-9013 ext 120
.  >email  DThomas@lpw-mdi.com
.  >
.  >
.  >-----Original Message-----
.  >From: Mark Curtis [mailto:mark.curtis@hafele.co.uk]
.  >Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 5:09 AM
.  >To: BPCS-L@midrange.com
.  >Subject: RE: Why did you choose BPCS
.  >
.  >
.  >Dan,
.  >
.  >Why did I choose BPCS ....
.  >
.  >Value for money, flexibility, openness, easy development, ease of use,
.  >expandability ... and did I mention year 2000 compliance.
.  >
.  >We are on Unix/Informix and have written a lot of additional code in VB
.  >using ODBC and making use of SMG's.  The underlying data
.  structure to BPCS
.  >is easy to work with and given a development team very very
.  quick to expand.
.  >We added a whole warehousing system in around 3 months.
.  >
.  >And I must agree with George Sagen, on a mailing list used for problem
.  >sharing and solving you will get the impression the system is bug ridden
.  >(which of course it has its share but how many packages can you
.  name that
.  >are bug free ?)
.  >
.  >???? Why do you ask ????
.  >
.  >Regards
.  >Mark Curtis
.  >IT Director
.  >Hafele U.K. Limited
.  >Tel : +44 (0)1788 542020
.  >Fax : +44 (0)1788 541860
.  >email : mailto:mark.curtis@hafele.co.uk
.  >Web : http://www.hafele.co.uk
.  >
.  >
.  >-----Original Message-----
.  >From: owner-bpcs-l@midrange.com [mailto:owner-bpcs-l@midrange.com]On
.  >Behalf Of Dan Thomas
.  >Sent: 09 June 1999 18:41
.  >To: 'bpcs-l@midrange.com'
.  >Subject: Why did you choose BPCS
.  >
.  >
.  >I've followed this mail list for about five months now and most of the
.  >comments seem to be rather negative about performance and stability.  I
.  >realize these forums are not always indicative of the entire
.  user base, but
.  >I'm curious what is driving users to choose BPCS or even stay with it.
.  >
.  >Dan Thomas
.  >Sr. VP Information Systems
.  >Medical Distribution, Inc.
.  >4500 Progress Blvd
.  >Louisville, KY  40218-5058
.  >Phone (502) 454-9013 ext 120
.  >email  DThomas@lpw-mdi.com
.  >
.  >+---
.  >| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
.  >| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
.  >| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
.  >| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
.  >| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
.  >+---
.  >
.  >
.  >+---
.  >| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
.  >| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
.  >| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
.  >| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
.  >| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
.  >+---
.  >+---
.  >| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
.  >| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
.  >| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
.  >| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
.  >| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
.  >+---
.  >
.  >
.
.  +---
.  | This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
.  | To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
.  | To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
.  | To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
.  | Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
.  +---
.



+---
| This is the BPCS Users Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to BPCS-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to BPCS-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to BPCS-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner: dasmussen@aol.com
+---