Home Forums Discussions Problems Greased lightning V 6 0 9

Per other thread we installed microsoft .net Framework 4.0 on our XP pro server and workstations. (We had 3.5 previously as seen on control panel/add or remove programs).

After this update, AC is greased lightning just like V5.0.

My staff noticed too that it was faster. They noticed especially on imported items. Their (and mine) med list screen - left for past ones and right one for script writer-- was faster too- staff do not need to check interactions. So their interaction cheker is turned off in their settings. (Not for me as MU is based on ME to attest to CMS).

So in my mind I believe it was this issue that was the reason AC v 6 0 9 was slow. (Mind that sometimes mind can play tricks or 2).

http://amazingcharts.com/ub/ubbthreads.php/topics/33295/Just_upgraded_Write_Scripts_pr#Post33295

Very interesting. So we can blame microsoft for this <grin>. And perhaps some to Amazing Charts for not including the .net Framework 4.0 installer on the 6.0.9 install file? Surely the fix can't be this easy. I appreciate joseph2 post for sure - anybody else want to try to confirm on their systems?

That would be awesome if that were all it were.

Again, though, it begs the question, why not post it on the board so everyone installs 4.0

Why doesn't .net update automatically as part of Windows update? I looked on several of my XP Pro computers, and they are still running .net 3.5 SP1.

For anyone who wants the .net 4 instill, its here .

While Bert was fighting bats, we were upgrading from .net 3.5 to 4.
We have one machine with an older processor running XP which has been substantially slower to eRx (usable, but barely) than our newer XP machines.
After the upgrade (which by the way, is a snap... DJW do NOT pay someone to do this) eRx is substantially faster. Not greased lightning, but far better.
Could Joseph have found the answer? (Well actually, it looks like it WAS AC support that suggested this).
And isn't it interesting that as Lawrence points out, Win7 comes with .net4...so maybe the difference is not so much Win 7 vs XP, as it is the lack of .net4 on the latter.
And to echo John's question...in the past it appears that .net upgrades were occurring with automatic updates, but with v4 it did not. What's up with that?

It may be too soon for "attaboys" all around, but I am also busy moving all my XP computers up to .net 4.

Amazing to see the "hive mind" of the board at work.

Ryanjo,

Ask the opposing question: What would happen if Microsoft started force feeding updates that many users may not need or that compete with other company's products?

MS used to do this back in the 2000 - 2002 days but got in trouble for it big time.

JamesNT

On a second note, I doubt very seriously that .Net 4.0 performs that much faster than .Net 3.5. More than likely you are seeing performance improvements because some part of AC calls an API that does not exist in .Net 3.5 but does in .Net 4.0. However, the point still stands: If .Net 4.0 is required then AC should install it for you or at least give you heads up.

JamesNT

Did you uninstall previous .nets or just install 4 with others still there?
When I did my original install of AC 5.0.29, and had all the "troubles", one of the theories was a .net problem. I was instructed to uninstall all of them, and then reinstall all sequentially.
So, does one need all the versions, or does 4 replace the prior versions?

According to the download page in my post above:
I know, this doesn't answer the real question "what versions of .NET do I need to run Amazing Charts?" But at least you don't have to uninstall any earlier versions before installing .NET 4

Donna,
I will give you my answer (with no guarantee that it is the correct one). To check which version of .NET I was running, I looked in the install/uninstall programs control panel. There I saw .NET 2, 3, and 3.5, with various service packs. I figured if it wasn't uninstalling with prior automatic updates, I would just do the same and add the new one.

I suppose that goes along with John's info, which to me suggests that certain applications may still need the older versions of .NET to properly function.

Thank you , John and Jon, that is what I thought.
I remember tech support telling me what .net was needed for V5, and my support person for my PM program telling me a different one for that program, but I don't remember the specifics of which ones. The two programs are also using different versions of SQL. I agree with the prior comments that if AC V6 does better with .net 4, it would have been nice if that information had been provided to us.

Hi Everyone,

Thanks to joseph2 for this thread and his post. I believe most of us agree, that having the .Net Framework 4.0 is the fix for the prescription writer issues, running on Windows XP and 7 PCs.

This is due to AC's lack of communication here. It's not up to certain members on the user board to communicate a broad problem. The reason being because some members may visit the board very little. They may not read every thread. Some are shy to post; some don't care to post anything.

The list can go on. My point is - this is AC's user board. This is where all the action is. Someone inside AC should schedule a time, maybe from 10am -11am, or 3pm - 4pm to communicate with user board members. I don't mean in stealth mode either. I believe that would help significantly. The website is good, but the loyal following lives here (on the user board). The website is for potential buyers/members to know more about the company and product.

To answer the questions in the above posts. I understand now that AC is using .Net technology. It is a good idea to keep all your current .Net Frameworks installed. There are other applications on your PC that may use an older .Net Frameworks.

For example my product uses the .Net Framework 3.5 SP1. With my installer I have .Net Framework 3.5 to install automatically if it's not found on a user PC.


Absolutely! James.

AC is going through some changes. That's why it's good to effectively communicate these changes, especially, when new a framework is involved. Microsoft frameworks are beasts! Meaning they are massive and could do a lot good things. But, they could become a person (programmer) worst nightmare, too!

This has been a good experience for the user board. I said this in my very first post. Of course, that post got deleted for good reason. This user board reminds of a family. You guys are tight here. I saw that before I joined. AC needs to see that now.

That's true for any company's programming platform. They are all huge, with massive amounts of documentation no one will ever read through in their lifetimes, and the just keep getting bigger because we all want more, more, more.

JamesNT

Very true.

What software & hardware are necessary when I upgrade to version 6? Currently, running version 5.0.29 using Windows XT software on Single and Dual core machines. Is Version 6 stable at this time and most of the bugs fixed ?

Hi DocDino,

I have posted numerous times over the last week. We upgraded a week ago, sounds like our hardware setup was like yours.

What a week! Rxing was extremely slow, virtually nonfunctional on older XP computers.

AC v6 seems to like Win 7 much more than XP.

My solution, at least for the desktops, was to add video cards, these helped rxing speed considerably.

For your setup, buying new computers, upgrading all existing to Win7Pro, or getting ready for some frustration and troubleshooting seem to be the options.

Overall advice- DO NOT UPGRADE YET!!!

Other more computer savvy people will probably reply, the above is my experience and recommendation.

Good luck! Gene

Dr. D,
I agree with Gene at this point.

Today,whenever I tried to generate an order, I saw 3 of everything on my task bar (AC, the patient's chart, the order and something else) and the windows just kept blinking on and off.This went on for about 5 minutes. Then it settles down until the next order is generated.

Every day is a different nightmare. I do not have time for this.

Nightmare on Elm Street can't compare to my last 24 hours.

I don't know who said what, but people:

When you purchase software, be it WIN 7 or Adobe or whatever or even a new video card, there are minimum requirements on the box. Office 2010 has minimum requirements. But, upgrades DON'T and SHOULDN'T require upgrades to your hardware.

Imagine Adobe updating to 11.0, and you have to buy a faster processor. Or Firefox goes to 5.0 and you need more RAM. Granted, there are exceptions as with a major upgrade XP Pro to WIN 7, but even then. Do you think it is in Microsoft's best interest to put out an OS that will only work on an i5 or higher?

Bert,

I can sort of guess what you are experiencing, are you up to posting any details?

Our update from today: All desktops doing very well with new video cards. May even be a little faster now than they were with AC v5.

Laptops still very very very slow rxing, I have an i5 laptop on order, as well as a Win7Pro update to use on an old laptop.

Hang in there! Gene

Along with a simple graphical user interface shouldn't require a graphics card. I can see why games need those crazy graphics card, but a GUI, really...

I contract with an IT company that handles IT for 100 small and medium companies, some of them physicians. I do not know what kind of "boxes" they use but they have 8MB RAM and are way beyond anything commercially available. I believe the "box" my computer is on costs 10-20K. I connect to it via thin client. When I initially installed 609 on my dell inspiron laptop, it did and still blazes away without errors. But as soon as 2 or more people connect to our "cloud" application server (the database is on the database server), all hell breaks loose. Yesterday, I canceled my patients and sent my 2 workers home because it was taking 15 minutes to read a .pdf attachment on email, esign it, and fax it back. We use ring central as our VOIP phone, terminal server for outlook (2008). When one looks at the task manager, AC starts chewing up the CPU resources until the whole system disintegrates. This did not happen with the same set up in version 5. Version 609 worked well except the Rx portion UNTIL the dot net updrage and now nothing works at all as soon as two or more users are on. My IT company restarts the server at 3 AM and depending on how early I get up I can then do the previous days notes, emails and faxes without a problem. Then I take two valium and wait for the new nightmare to begin as my office staff arrives.

To repeat:1- 609 works well on my stand alone laptop--even the surescripts part, which is why I upgraded.
2-As soon as 2 or more try to work with it, it causes major headaches and crashes as it starts hogging more and more CPU resources until it completely stops.

My IT company is now telling me that I need to get a bigger "box" with 8 processors to handle the demands they see that AC is demanding.

My choices are to either get a new EMR, get a new IT company, or give up private practice and get a new job. I would appreciate any comment from anyone from AC. When I try to get tech support and go to the online chat, if there is nobody available, my email gets sent back as rejected for security reasons. I guess they know me....

You should tell us more about this box. 8MB RAM, your probably mean 8GB of RAM. 8MB is nothing. I'd hardly call it beyond commercially available. I have 16GB of RAM in my personal computer and I've seen 16GB kits for a 100 bucks. I doubt it costs 10-20K. I have a server with 16GB of RAM and the RAM was about 200-300 for the RAM (ECC of course). Total cost was 2500. Perhaps you could ask the IT company for the specs of your box.

You may want to check your networking. The thing about cloud setups is that 95% of your setup is controlled by the company. A box with 8 Processors or 8 cores. AC does not need 8 processors. One thing you need to do for sure is get a better idea of the specifications of the box from your IT Company.

DJW,
A couple preliminaries: just to be clear, when you say you would appreciate "any comment from anyone from AC", you should understand that you will not get that here. The forum is a great place to get (hopefully useful) information from other users, but it is NOT from the company.
If you do want to contact the company, we find an online chat to be the most efficient way to go. While they are often available immediately, you do sometimes have to wait a bit. We have had an issue with email requests bouncing back, too. Just keep "pinging" for help every few minutes and you should get some help. Obviously a staffer can do this and then call you over when AC comes online.
Lastly, most people on here prefer using real names, so if you feel comfortable doing so, please tell us yours and add it to your signature.

As to your issue: you posted a few days ago and my suggestion was to roll back to V5. I would still stand by that. AC can help you with that step, if necessary.
On the other hand, it does sound like your network setup is a little unconventional (for AC) and may well be the source of your problems. It also sounds like your IT support is not all that it should be. As Sandeep says, it is unclear exactly what your hardware consists of, but it seems very unlikely that your answer is to throw more money at it to upgrade the server (after all...AC runs fine for you on a Dell laptop)!

Again, I would recommend that you end your suffering by going back to V5. You can immediately get back to work without any more hair pulling. In coming weeks have some additional discussions with your IT people, and wait for a more stable version of 6 from AC.

At this point, I cannot recommend another IT resource that can host AC for you and provide good support. On the other hand, such a resource will likely be available soon.

On a more positive note ... we went to 6.0.9 as soon as it was released. Other than the still miserable orders reconciliation system, and 6.0.9's refusal to work with PDF Professional V.7 (worked with AC5.), we have been generally happy. But, our oldest machine is Windows Vista, and most are Windows 7, all with a minimum of 3gb RAM. ($400 Acers from TigerDirect)

We did, however, recently choose to upgrade our network to gigabit speeds. (Cost us $250 for a 24 port switch and four 8 port local switches). That was money well spent! Significantly improved the push/pull time for imported items from what we've ever had - almost instantaneous.

$10-20K for a "box"??? Must be a heck of a computer!

Having spent a significant amount of time spinning up raw servers recently, I applied the v4 .NET framework patch, and on the restart the server instance became un-useable as the CPU jumped to 100% and stayed pegged. I eventually got the task manager up, sorted for CPU load and found mscorsvw.exe 'camping' the processor.

Because it was a server instance, I could use my machine to google the offending beast. In short order I found the following from the Microsoft Dev world. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/davidnotario/archive/2005/04/27/412838.aspx

The post is old, but I believe the construct holds that .NET is busy compiling assemblies once anything with .NET has changed. It is quite dis-concerting to have a fresh server go non-responsive (the polite form of bat-sh*t crazy), and my guess is that v4 of .NET is bigger, 'badder', and eats longer and harder. FYI - for those using the Updox connector, it uses .NET as well.

I will say that since those first episodes, the server seems fine, but it has 5.0.29 on it atm because it is an "Upgrade" instance. There is a 6.0.9 instance on the same chassis that has been up, in use, and trouble-free for the last 10 days.

I don't understand the argument for 8 Cores, as all of our instances are single processor; I'd add memory before processors because AC doesn't appear heavily threaded - like say an Apache or Tomcat server.

I will say that we tend to run 'lean' servers, and turn off everything that isn't essential to the operation of a practice. So no Exchange or Sharepoint for example; for the typical practice a hosted service [i.e. hosted exchange or Google Apps] is less work and headache.

The .NET upgrade itself is not that daunting especially if you know that the machine needs to sit and chew once it comes back up.

If you are In-extremis and want to reach out you are welcome to private message me.

Now it is getting interesting:

The same problem of slow AC seems to be solved by different solutions:

1. Net 4.0 from MS - free
2. About $350.00 ? royal graphic card per computer
3. Turning off hardward acceleration.

May be more will coming. I will stay tuned till Jon sends us
V 6 0 10 beta.

May be this just proves that the slowness is due to a variety of reasons.

Does .NET4 need to be installed on client computers, or only main computer?

I installed .net4 on all-----both main and clients.

Did notice that if the traffic in the office network is more- with all staff logged in - the network gets slower, especially the medication and imported items pullups.

When I am working alone it is faster in computer with 2 gb ram/faster processor vs workstation with just 0.5 gb ram/slower processor.

I did try the hardware accelerator turn off- at first it seemed to make a difference, then it did not.

Bert,


Sometimes, yes. We all demand better graphics, better security and all that requires more 'horsepower.' So as better hardware becomes more mainstream, yes, I expect requirements to go up.

JamesNT

Because each machine will be executing on the local machine processor when running client-server (the default AC architecture), that framework will be accessed on each machine.

Keep in mind that there will be some CPU chugging going on once the .NET framework is modified.

Thank you.
I took advantage of our rainy day to update the office computers to .NET4, and cleanup, defrag, etc. in preparation for V6. Still haven't gotten up the nerve to install after having problems on the "sandbox" machine. Hopefully soon...

I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest and it appears the overall conclusion is, at this point, most obvious:

Amazing Charts Version 6.x is simply not ready.

Amazing Charts is a client/server application that takes data entry into various fields on various windows of its GUI and writes the contents of those fields to corresponding tables in a SQL Server database. It also pulls data from that same SQL Server database to populate fields on those same screens when the user searches for data.

There should not be any:

* special processor requirements
* special video card requirements
* special memory requirements

If AC requires a specific version of the .Net framework, that should be published on the AC website somewhere.

Also, and I want everyone to listen to what I am about to type very carefully, there should not be any special server requirements. The VAST MAJORITY of people on this forum should be able to run AC just fine with a run-of-the-mill business class laptop or workstation. On the server end, a base class server should be fine for just about everyone here. Those of you that have a server that costs over $5,000 were either ROBBED, LIED TO, HAVE INCOMPETENT IT, or you have some special need in your office that you had best be aware of (that need not being AC, of course).

Let me give everyone an idea of what you should be doing with a server that costs $8,000 in hardware alone:

1. This server runs SQL Server 2008 Standard which hosts all of our reports using SQL Server Reporting Services, does all of our automation using SQL Server Integration Services such as auto-payment posting and interfacing with various EMR's, and hosts all of our databases.

2. This server runs our Exchange 2010 with over 50GB of email currently in the Exchange Message Store. All of our faxes as they come in are routed through Exchange as PDF attachements to the person who should get that fax based on caller ID.

3. This server has our Terminal Server which has anywhere between 70 - 80 concurrent users on it M - F.

4. This server runs our domain controller to authenticate users when they log in.

5. This server runs our Team Foundation Server for software development.

In short, this server runs 5 copies of Windows Server 2008 R2 at the same time via virtulizationg using Microsoft's Hyper-V. If you paid serious coin for your machine, you had best be getting the same utilization.

I'm sorry, everyone, but what I am seeing here doesn't make sense and I'm calling it out before the good people on this forum start wasting money.

JamesNT