-
Posts
-
I am still using NV! quite happily. I’ve been keeping an eye on comments relative to conversion to NV2 and I note that (i) it sounds really complicated and (ii) there seem to be a lot of problems reported by users requiring assistance.
My recollection when NV2 first came out was that a lot of the commentary was that it was an incomplete program that was not ready for prime time.
I would appreciate comments from NV2 USERS giving their thoughts and benefit of their experience.
Others may have a different outlook and it would be nice if they would respond.
I consider NV1 as the best accounting system around and particularly like the versatility homegrown procedures offer. I have used it for 21 years now. I still have all the NV Journal publications that were put out by Q.W. Page, not to mention the printed manuals that came with the original purchase.
I tried NV2 after release and ran into myriad problems that just did not seem like they should have been there after fifteen years of conversion effort. Some of these were corrected before I signed off.
In the program, among other things, importing and exporting ala NV1 just was not there. I like the use of an autoexec procedure for automatic recurring postings. Something similar just does not exist in NV1.
I concluded NV2 would have to simmer for a long time before it measures up to NV1. I keep monitoring the releases and I may try it again in five years.
I did note to myself that NV1 up until about version 1.11, or so, had many problems. That version came eight years after the introduction of version 1.
NV1 also received the PC Magazine award of excellence in 1986. I have often wondered if PC Magazine has reviewed NV2.
Thanks, WGray. You express exactly my experience and sentiment. I too bought NV1 in 1987, January based entirely on the PC Magazine Award and I found it great.
The posts I saw re: conversion were just daunting and it seemed to have many shortcomings (which I can not afford).
I lament as well what today are apparent limitations (though they were not in 1987) of NV1, but I learned to live with them.
I will stick to NV1, and if I ever decide to go to a “modern” system, it is not likely to be NV2.
Personally, it was very disappointing to see QWP struggle for countless years with their windows version, only to come out with a half-baked program; especially given the incomparable usability and value of NV1.
You guys are tough. I’ve used NV1 for 20 years and was delighted. NV2 needs improvements but the product is a significant improvement over NV1 for multiuser alone.
I’ve been using NV2 for over 1 1/2 years and have been happy with the improved productivity. I have a mulituser client, 7 users, who is also delighted.
Its integration with Excel is also a big step forward. I know improvements will keep coming.
If anyone has a product better than NV2, let me know.
Art.
I have to agree with Art!
You guys are TOUGH!
I have used NV1 since 1985 and NV2 starting 2 months after it was released. Yes there is a learning curve but should we expect less!
Yes conversions take some time but when they are completed you have daily resolution of data. I personally couldn’t ask for more – unless it was per second resolution of data
(Oh yes – there is actually per second resolution of data – WOW) I have a client with a custom analysis report that shows only transactions made between 10 pm and 12 am!And the multi-user capabilities are amazing – I am able to help clients around the country from the comfort of my office while I am viewing their books as they give me permission.
As far as importing – I am importing data from a point of sale system into NV2. It is not a documented feature but it is there – if you are willing to put some time and effort in.
Bottom line for me – NV2 is a grown up version of NV-DOS. It is more of an ERP system that can now play with the big boys. But as you all know ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning – think SAGE or Great Plains) systems take time, training, and effort to make the best use of them.
We all appreciated NV-DOS because we could twist it and make it do what we personally needed it to do. Well, let me say that I am doing more with NV2 than I was ever able to do in NV-DOS. Custom anaylsis reports that resemble an excel spreadsheet tracking a Google AdWord campaign showing number of impressions, click thru rates,etc, etc and etc.
And it is only going to get better because that is the proven track record of QW Page – and NO I do not work for them.
Remember, don’t complain, just…
I don’t know anything about being tough (maybe expectant) and I don’t know exactly how much anyone’s productivity increased. There seems to be a lot of exasperation in other posts.
If it is that productive in its present form, I think the real key here would be for QW Page to submit a copy of NV2 to PC Magazine and request they again consider NewViews accounting software for their Award for Technical Excellence.
If it won, that would convert me back sooner and would increase NV2 sales and users probably quite dramatically.
I agree.
NV1, in 1986 was full of promise and great potential. It was a breath of fresh air, delivering everything that was promised and more.
It then got caught up in the Windows revolution and it took QWP at least 10 years (probably 12 or more) to come out with the long-promised NV2.
By then NewViews had been relegated (it seems to me) to a relatively small, cliquish Canadian market, with NV1’s promise and good will squandered.
From the posts I have seen over the last two or so years, NV2 indeed does seem overly complex, riddled with “issues” and unattractive to many.
I wonder if the market for NV2 is any larger than a subset of loyal NV1 users?
Enjoyed the comments above.
I have switched only three clients to NV2 and all three have switched back to NV1. The reason is the Macros (not NPL Procedures) which can setup to simplify their entry process. They all complained about the time it takes compared the NV1.
Maybe the longer they use NV2 the better, but they found the conversion too difficult and time consuming to bother with.
I also haven’t spent the time with NV2 to provide the assistance needed.
Interesting observations:
I took the plunge to convert to NV2 about 18 months ago – 30 Companies 7 – 10 users. I converted very slowly so that we were not overwhelmed.
It has been sucessful but not without its problems it is amazing how some very obvious things are still not included. The interface takes a lot of getting used to – I can’t put my finger on why – but it does.
One interesting thing though is the effect it has had on my younger employees – they used to be so shocked that we were still using a DOS based accounting program. Consequently they approached it with all sorts of misconceptions and refused to recognise how good it was. Now that they have a GUI interface they love it!
NV2 is probably 2 – 3 away from prime time but having used many other accounting software I am so glad it exists and I was able to upgrade to it. I get the impression that the focus todate in QWpage has been about the engineering of the back end and hope that shortly more attention will be paid to the front end
I know there is a lot more under the hood in NV2 and look forward to it being opened up for use.
John
I too started in 1986 with NV1 and grew very comfortable with the system. I wasn’t sure I wanted to jump to NV2 but convinced myself that with today’s hardware made for windows that it would be ok to do so. Yes there is a learning curve to climb and the initial offering had some things to work out. It is probably too customizable at times. But now after two years I wouldn’t think of going back to the dos system. The integration with Excel is great. It might help if there was a way to automate some reports that you could just pick from a drop down menu on the top of any screen.
We are long-term NV1 users & have done some truly remarkable things in report configuration for in-house clients over the many years (as I am sure many of you have). The frustrations we have with the excruciatingly slow roll-out of NV2 is similar to that reflected in the frustration in the various posts above – confusing GUI, steep learning curve, speed issues & certainly report generation. Multi-user is not a requirement for our bookkeeping service. I have been told that there is substantial unreleased code in NV2 relating to other features, yet report writing to produce simple publishable statements never seemed to cross anyone’s mind at QWP.
Unfortunately, I do not take heart with the current pace of NV2 development & the lack of a marketing plan that reaches out to accounting professionals outside of ON. In QC, we have additional issues with language, appropriate training materials in French & the fact that accounting students coming out of the local colleges & technical schools, and regional accountants, have never heard of NV1 or 2.
We had used Wordperfect & Quatro-Pro for years before we were forced by the MS juggernaut to convert to Office, since everyone else in the field was using Office. I have reached that same tipping point with NV2 & we are now looking closely at Acomba – heavily installed in QC (75k users), good research team, good technology across the board – Accountant’s Suite 495$ all modules in + gold support, multi-user, unlimited nbr of office users & clients. We would bail on our payroll software at the same time, so I am looking at a net annual outlay of 225$. I know there will be some limitations in how far out there we can get with this software in terms of report config., but every CV I look at from students to experienced bookkeepers includes Acomba training.
Additionally, if I ever wish to sell this practice, I need to have each service area sufficiently anchored to solid software. Another accountant walking in here would make short work of NV1. I had hoped that by 2008 we would have long-installed NV2, had worked out the bugs and had substantial experience accrued in our staff, but after a 1-month testing 2 yrs ago, the consensus was unanimous that NV2 was not for us; I have not seen or read anything since that time to convince me that enough has been done in the interim to get us back into testing. I really wish that were not the case ‘cuz this sure reads like my swan-song…
Dennis Glezos
Dennis
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
