What about AccountMate? - They have a complete, modularized, range of accounting packages in FP for Windows & Visual (VFP version won an award from MS even & they even now have an AS400 version endorsed & supported by IBM) with full acces to code: there used to be a version in FP DOS but I don't think that version is available anymore (even though I should know that answer ;~) ). You can pick & choose from GL, AP, AR, PR, even inventory, etc., as meets your needs.
My company has been a VAR for AccountMate since 1989 (my gosh, where have all those years gone?) & for my money, it is a much better compilation of features & benefits than SBT from which, I believe, the AccountMate start-up group departed in 1984 though that may be incorrect; it is also easier to handle since it uses conventional (FP) programming paradigm, they have a Usergroup forum & training.
HTH. You can get more info at
http://www.accountmate.com/ if you want to. I get nothing out of this except possible defense of a great alternative to SBT since, if you like their product, I will expect you to deal directly with them. /psb.
>>>>>I am looking for a simple DOS or windows 2.x accounting package with source code that I can use to run my small business. I am more interested in straightforward code and simplicity than in complex capabilities of the software package. Any suggestions, comments or experiences with particular packages would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>James Thompson
>>>>>Chartwell Information
>>>>>jimpson@ibm.net
>>>>
>>>>Stay away from SBT. Allow though you can buy a source code version, there are Foxpro Programmer and SBT programmers and they are NOT the same people. SBT has a specific format for their code, no mater what the version, if you are familar with one, you can work on it (Both pro and con). Besides, it is not small or cheap but I've worked with it for over six months and that's my experience.
>>>>
>>>>Fred Lauckner
>>>
>>>Fred,
>>>
>>>Actually, I would beg to differ with you. While there is a learning curve on SBT, what product doesn't have one. I am and know many programmers that program in SBT and are also excellent FoxPro programmers. Once you get over the learning curve, it isn't that hard to program in. Some of the "lower end" versions aren't that expensive when it comes to a source code product. I don't always agree with the SBT way of programming, but I take offense at someone who says that you can't be a FoxPro programmer and an SBT programmer as well!
>>>
>>>About 6 months ago, Tamar E. Granor (FoxPro Advisor Editor) got an SBT account. It took her a while and many questions, but she learned it. Are you saying that now that she can program in SBT, she's not a FoxPro programmer?
>>>
>>>Sorry for getting so upset, but blanket statements like that can cause more harm than good. Just because you don't like the way a commercial product is developed doesn't necessarily mean that it is bad, just different.
>>>
>>>I do know programmers that wouldn't be able to program in anything but SBT, but there are many of us out there that can (and do) do both.
>>>
>>>Rod Lewis
>>
>>Well Rod, when I was at SBT for SBT programming training, the instructor made the comment about FoxPro Programmers and SBT programmers over and over again. I guess I left out the "NECESSARALLY" after the NOT in my origianal message. I didn't mean to offend anyone by saying that they were not foxpro programmers if they have programmed in SBT. But I've found (and SBT says) that most simple modifications can be done using the procedures and functions included with the product with only a few lines of code calling the functions and procedures (This was demoed at the training class and I've done it in real life). Other foxpro programmers that I've worked with have made similar comments about their experience with SBT. I agree that once you understand their coding standards it is easy to deal with their packages. Also, I did state in my message before that I was talking about MY EXPERIENCE.
>>
>>Fred Lauckner
>><
>
>><< IM(extremely)HO>>
>
>Fred,
>
>I didn't mean to be quite as harsh as I came across. I guess when you look at SBT, they have their own "framework" that if you choose to work within, can be a very quick method of modifying their code, but you don't "have" to use their methods. Using them makes a change small and painless. Not using them means that you probably have your own library of tools that you prefer to use and they "usually" work just fine in their environment. I agree that not all of their packages are targeted for the "small" company looking for a source code product, but it is a very viable solution for a company still looking for a Y2K DOS compatible product.
>
>And yes, you are right that there are SBT programmers (who don't know jack about FoxPro).
>
>Again, didn't mean to bite your head off,
>
>Rod
