Home Forums Discussions General Discussion Beta Tester

Does anyone else feel like signing up to be an Amazing Charts Beta Tester is a blackhole?

Don't seem to get any access to the Beta I's

Oh well... I guess i might be saving myself a bunch of frustration anyways.

Last thing I'll mention is AC should really consider hotfixes... you know, for the little issues that you absolutely need.

I haven't been an AC user for long, but also signed up for beta testing.. I thought that a new user, I would be low man on the totem pole. I'd love hot fixes.

I have used Amazing Charts for about 10 years - have done beta testing since it was just posted as an available beta release and anyone could. I have even done alpha testing as one of the first offices to use Version 5 in its infancy. Have usually had little if any problems although once or twice had major issue. I think AC is trying to be a bit more restrained in beta now as just releasing it and having hundreds of offices experience a problem is really an issue for tech support.

I don't think you will find there is much more in beta versions over what is posted on the website right now. I would recommend that it may be like new drugs - maybe best to not be the first one to use a new one, but not the last to use the old one.

I think AC is planning on releasing a new version very shortly.

Hi Stylnchris,

Steven is correct, we like to keep our Beta releases small until we can determine that it is safe to release to our Clients.

We are currently testing a new version and once we have determined that it is ready, we will release it to a wider group.

Please feel free to apply for Beta Testing, if you have not done so already.

Thank you,
-Darryl@AC

Betas are not for everyone. They have the potential of corrupting your data. They can introduce problems that become a headache.

They can also be cool to be the first kid on the block with the latest and greatest.

Technically 6.1.2 is Beta, so if you are using it you are beta.

I am like Stephen, I have been using AC for 10 years and always like to have the betas. Sometimes I do get them, and sometimes I don't.

I am capable to recreating my entire system in 30 minutes if need be and create an entirely new "server" if need be. I have a fairly good knowledge of networking at the interface level and have played with much in the pantheon of Microsoft projects. And I am not always chosen for betas. That's OK because they have a plan about releasing them, and sometimes it's OK to skip a minor version change.

All of this is to say, don't feel bad if you have not been chosen to beta test. Perhaps it will come later. I would guess that they have a list and then choose criteria by which they want people to beta.

But remember, you must always pre-test beta on a non-live system and then be prepared to elevate it to a live system. You must also be prepared for potential catastrophic failure. THUS YOU MUST HAVE A ROBUST BACKUP SYSTEM IN PLACE (and know how to use it.)

If this does not describe you, don't sign up. If it does, but you are adverse to RISK, don't sign up. If you don't understand TCP/IP don't sign up. And even if you do, you may never hear from them.

This message was written with no inside information from Amazing Charts Company other than my experience and common sense.

Wendell,

Thank you for the well worded summary--just a few days ago didn't even know what ll (imported item) means and am getting up to speed on the definitions of thin and thick client--so I appreciate guys like you taking on the risk for the benefit of others.

One other thing I forgot is that some betas only have changes that affect a few people - like when they fix something with a particular interface or add particular features. I think when those things are something they want to release they like to have a few people who it affects do and then report back.

I do think AC's next release to more betas/regular release is slated for the near future as they keep talking about imminent release.

In regards to 'hot fixes' I know it is not the same but in the ealy years if an error or something was found and we sent e-mail to Jon he would try to incremental release quickly - he said that became problematic as he would be guilty of 'feature creep' or trying to release new version for one new, neat feature and that may end up affecting a lot.

When the jump went from Version 4 to 5 it was a big jump adding in the CCHIT certification stuff and when it jumped again to Version 6 it was another big leasp.

There were beta's that have been problematic. You upgrade and discover that prescriptions won't print write, or that prescriptions are not correlating with the certified versions and now you have to spend more time to write, say prescriptions. Sure it's only a couple seconds but after 30 or so prescriptions, that time adds up. AND YOU ARE NOT GETTING PAID. This is for the greater good.

No belly aching here, I like to work on beta's and accept their inherent risks.

I spent an hour with AC Central with early V6 with the speed issue. I wound up replacing 4 computers with dual cores somewhat faster than anticipated. All this was before a fix was figured out. But 6.0.4 was so DOG SLOW that I could not function and I was not going to go backward (I thought about it though.) I did discover that having logmein logged in would allow me to function better. Crazy work arounds. That was about as bad as it gets.

Honestly, there are "Official Stable Versions" that have issues with printing using the Star TSP 800 Printer.

I guess why I would want to be a beta tester is because I'm actually an IT Consultant. I work for 4 Doctors (After Hours) to support their computing needs. One doctor I have setup to have a "test" server. Seems like it would be perfect fit to beta test these things. Oh well, have to wait until I'm called upon.

Chris

I view it as more like one of life's mysteries than a blackhole. The criteria are somewhat opaque.
Perhaps a "glass is half full" view of the life is important to being selected. Wendell ended up buying 4 new machines, essentially because he was using a beta. Others (including me) might be yelling and screaming. His attitude is basically "I got 4 new computers out of the deal".

It seems to me that most of the versions are beta anyway. I don't mean that as a knock against AC, it's just how they come out with versions. There have been many versions that were used that never made it to an official release.

I don't want to stir the pot but I don't believe that even Bert has gotten to play with all the beta versions has he ?? Bert do you do all the betas???

I do not. But, that is a tough question, because AC doesn't really do beta testing. They just put releases out and call it a beta. Occasionally, you beta test and get access to a version that is not up on the site, but then users put it up on the board anyway. Again, not to knock AC, but the way the versions are put out makes no sense. The end result works.

They have changed their beta process. In the past betas were really just the next main release, let it sit out there for a while and if there were not a lot of complaints it was certified (might not actually be the process but it seemed that way)

Now, they actually do seed it to a small number of testers. I do not know what criteria they use, I have been aware of beta's I was not a part of and others I have been. I have skipped installing a live functioning copy of a few upgrades and perhaps beta's too if they did not make a change effecting anything I do. I will usually play with them on my home computer for anywhere from a day or two to an entire week depending on how much time I have and whether I think it is enough of a change to rush into live trials. I always have to be convinced it wont cause me major headaches before I go live.

Sure they are supposed to make sure it's not seriously flawed by the time it's beta, but I HAVE to be sure and comfortable before I spend probably at least an hour or two loading it in the office.

Chris, you weren't around for the prescription writer craze. Everyone was going nuts, buying new graphics cards, upgrading to Windows 7 Pro after an "official" V6 release. I would personally test it in a non-production environment, but a lot of people like to run the betas in a production environment which is a bad idea.

If I were to beta test, I'd probably load my database in a virtual machine and run it in a test environment before going live.

You can beta test all you want, but in the end, until you try it out extensively in the real worlds you are not going to find the real bugs. The first V6.0.4, ran fine on my home computer (a quad core at the time) but bogged down on the P4s in the office.

AC's betas are more stable than many final products which goes to explain why they leave some, like V6.1.2 floating out there as "permanent beta's." While I expect them to be stable, I will run them in a pre-production environment, my home computer. Yes, I suppose they could corrupt my home computer if they were really messed up, and that would require me to do a backup restore, but in the 10 years of running AC I have yet to have any major system problems from a program. I do run virtual machines on my home computer but they are Win8 and Ubuntu. Also, I sometimes will fire up my copy of AC when I am online to research a question here. It takes longer to open a virtual machine. I am not arguing with Sandeep, that IS an excellent idea. I guess I am more explaining why I don't do it that way.

Sandeep is correct.

Wendell is correct.

And, Wendell just confirmed what I said earlier. It's hard to beta test AC, because the betas aren't really betas.

Wendell, why no WIN 7 on the VM? Cost?

Honestly, I cannot tell you why, never really thought about it. I have a laptop and a desktop that I can use for testing. My desktop is Win 7 Pro and I DO have XP loaded on Virtual PC but never put AC on the that VM. I do run test programs that I am not sure of with it, I guess I have always trusted AC more and thus did not put it on Virtual PC.

Cost is only a semi factor, I could always reload Win 7 every 30 days if I really did not want to buy another license.

Although I have been using Win7 Pro's Virtual PC and the free Virtual PC, I really did not get into virtual machines that much until about a year ago. I needed to clone my old P2 450 machine that had an old immunization program and deactivate that machine. I then started playing with VMs. That machine was Win 2000 and no longer will run AC Actually ran fairly quickly because Win 2000 has a fairly low overhead on the machine. Oh well, time moves on .....

Probably better to run AC in a VM, but never really worried about it. Certainly quicker to start it directly than to open a VM. Now that I am have an 8 core machine VMs are my friends.

How is Windows 8? Have you ever moved a VM from one computer to another?

Windows 8 is OK, the new tablet style Metro interface seems somewhat silly, but I suppose one could get used to it. You need to eliminate a lot of junk and just have spots for important stuff, then figure out a way to get to all of the occasionally used stuff you have on your machine, and it would be fine. Probably better just to make Metro interface optional. If you flip over to the desktop side, it's basically Win 7 without a start button.

Actually, I did move the immunization machine from one computer to another (dual to quad core, more memory) easily. I started by simply referencing it on the dual core hard drive, but it seemed slow and occasionally would not start. I then copied it over to the main hard drive of the quad core and it ran well. It had to reset new settings (new device as monitor and something else that escapes me at the present) when Win 2000 opened up. I suspect XP or above would have requested reactivation with this amount of change, but it ran well.