Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry, scratch the above information as had already discovered and posted this approach to full screen with Vista in another thread.
My apologies.
Normally I run NV1, full-screen on a 24-inch monitor using Windows XP, 32 bit.
I have been “testing” NV1 with Windows Vista 32 bit and have achieved a little success in having it fill the screen on a 17-inch laptop.
I can fill the screen entirely from top to bottom (and then some). From left to right, the program comes within a half-inch on each side of completely filling the screen. I am assuming this would work proportionately on a larger screen.
I selected the NV1 Screen “Size” option on the NV Menu to 43/50 as HMah suggested.
I then shut NV1 down and opened the properties of the program icon.
Under “Font,” I selected a “Size” of “36” and changed “Raster Fonts” to “Lucida Console.”Because the 43/50 screen size puts some account lines below the bottom of the screen, one has to scroll down to pick up everything. However, Vista provides a sidebar for that purpose and that sidebar can be used with a mouse to scroll.
The next “Lucida Console” font option above 36 is 72. When selecting 72, it fills the screen entirely with NV1 but you can see only a small portion of the program. A size somewhere between 36 and 72 would probably fill the entire screen.
I have only been toying with this and do not know what all the negatives are. One is that the screen is not placed in the same position each time you open the program.
I do not have a printer and DOSPRN hooked up to the laptop so I do not know how printing would be affected,if at all. If you print to screen, the resulting printout is a smallbox.
I have toyed with trying DOSBOX, but have yet to do that. A few months back, I think Martin said he might give it a try but there does not seem to be anything posted. Maybe there are not that many Vista folks actually wanting a full screen?
I once had a similar corruption problem with NV1 and perhaps this might help. Maybe someone else has another recommendation.
I cannot recall the circumstances but the corruption became apparent only when I performed a certain operation and the books then became unusable.
I suppose we all have our back up strategies and some might say this is overkill but for the past twenty years or so, I have backed up NV in entirety each day to DVD (in the “old days” it was to CD and tape) and sometimes more than once. At the end of the month, I back up to DVD, a USB hard drive, and a flash drive. Except for the flash drive, the backups go back two years.
Of course, if data is corrupted, the corruption is also backed up.
However, I also export and add each day’s journal entries into two separate files, one a yearly file and one a current month file. This is done automatically with a procedure each time I exit.
When I discovered the corruption problem at the end of the month, I restored the previous day back up but found I had the same corruption. I went back one week, two weeks, etc., with the same problem.
I finally restored a backup from the middle of the previous month that proved good. I then went to my exported journal file and imported the needed journal entries to bring the books up to date.
As near as I can recall, the only thing I needed to do manually was to add any new accounts created since that last good backup and redo any reconciliations since that time.
NV1, forever.
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.
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.
I have been reading the nv2 messages for some time using my password for nv1. There are two that I cannot access: pre release and conversion.
They apparently opened these up to nv1 users after the last round of complaints but did not want to tell anyone.
I also seem a little perplexed there is not much traffic in nv2 as one might think.
The latest post to nv2 came on june 12 and is quite interesting. It might be just as interesting to see if Phil answers the questions.
Thanks for considering/investigating opening the NV2 forum to NV1 users. That is really great.
I supsect most current DOS users would be willing to convert to the Windows version–the only question being at what point in time they can invest sufficient resources.
I hope that is not an overstatement.
To MSchappler: You have said that twice now, ie, NV2 is an open forum for registered users of NV2.
What we have suggested is that the NV2 formum be opened as read only to NV1 users.
What is the problem with that?
What is QW Page fearful of by opening the NV2 forum for read only to NV1 users?
What does QW Page have to gain by not opening it as read only to your other registered users?
I would agree but I think QW Page would allow NV1 users to have at least a read only access to the NV2 forum.
I cannot imagine what Phil Quackenbush thinks his organization has to gain by not allowing such access.
After all, are we not one big happy NewViews family?
Most of us would like to think so.
NV2 is released today according to the QW Page web site.
I am going to wait a short time before I order but I would like to log onto the NV2 site to get an idea of the traffic.
Up to this point the NV2 site was open only to those testing.
Can anyone say if access to NV2 will be allowable?
Walt
Thanks,
I really appreciate the explanation.
This apparently means my original question, above, concerning the warnings received about having locally brewed procedures with more than 1,000 lines are warnings that, in fact, actually have no meaning?
Walt
You have answered my question although I am not sure why we would be exporting useless data in fhe form of the unusualble procedures from NV1 into NV2.
It would seem to me that the PRC area should be by passed for export, however–needless to say–I don’t know what you folks are trying to accomplish by moving that unusuable data.
If you think you can say more than, “yes you have warnings,” then tell me first what you think you can learn, then include your Email.
Thanks
Not sure what sending a file would do.
Version 58 was run.
The only thing I am curious about is if procedures are not going to transfer why do some popup with a warning?
David says if one has a procedure with more than 1,000 lines a warning will appear.
What is the significance of the warning if the procedure will not transfer to NV2?
