Sage Line 50

Sage Line 50

Didn't find your answer?

I have received an unsolicited complimentary single user version of the above. Is it any good? In comparison to say Quickbooks or VT etc? I once used it 5 odd years ago when I was in the Sage Accountants Club! However I didn't like it then. Should I stay well away from it? P.S. How much is it worth?
Robert Mitchell

Replies (11)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By AnonymousUser
19th Mar 2005 09:29

Sage v QuickBooks
The previous writer has obviously not been using a current version of Sage. The archiving for accounts and VAT returns are excellent and save all sorts of previous problems.
I teach and install, set up and customize both programmes and have done so for quite some time. Each client has different needs and users. Both programmes have their place and I still do not have a favourite.
Sage is better at large volumes of data and can grow to quite a large number of users and companies, all paid for individually. QuickBooks can only have 5 users maximum at one time, but is truly multicompany from the start. You only pay for each user and that is the end of it.
Support is a different story.
Sage is excellent and rarely lets me down, QuickBooks is still in its infancy here and frustrates me most of the time. My needs for support are rare but when I do need it, I need it there and then for that particular client. QBks can rarely do that, they have to ring back, usually the next day, with anything other than basic queries.
QBks is very forgiving and allows you to change your mind about how things are set up. So many people I work with have 'had a go' before they find me and I have to try and clean up their mess. With Sage we often have to scrap what they've done and start again as the work already done is so badly set up. With QBks I can often amend their data to save hours of work and get them on the right lines.
Sage works on audit trail data, QBks is date driven, I agree about the poor audit trail in QBs, its almost not worth being there.
I hope this helps a bit.
As for trying it, it takes so long to set up an accounts programme to use for real, what was that person saying! Try and get someone to show you a well set up business working properly, that is the best way. The worth depends on which level of Sage and the prices are in PC World if you haven't been anywhere else! Shelagh Whiteman

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
16th Mar 2005 17:31

Sage
I like Sage a lot - much prefer it to QB these days.
Wonder how I go about getting a free version too, could really do with it!!!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By appacc
16th Mar 2005 16:42

Sage Line 50
Previous comment is a bit unfair!
Accountants like Sage products because they work in accordance with accountancy principles and fit in with our ideas of double entry, trial balances etc.
There may be better products for management control purposes but QB for instance is a real pain when you try to produce annual accounts and reconciliations.
Often, its just a matter of what you are used to. A business should always consider the needs of the accountant who will be receiving data at the year end when selecting software.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
16th Mar 2005 18:05

Try Sage for yourself
I'm very happy with Sage L.50 & Sage Accounts Production. All my computerised clients use Sage & are happy with it. Very easy to get good reports & audit trails re clients' data too. Quickbooks difficult for accountants to get what they need from it for final accounts.

Try it & see!

Thanks (0)
avatar
By jmc001
17th Mar 2005 17:39

Sage Line 50
If you will accept a comment from a software person who has used both rather than an accountant I would make the following comments:

The database which Sage uses is very old hat and it becomes slow if you keep much in the way of historical transactions - and I've learnt the hard way what happens 5 minutes after you've said "I'll never need that stuff from 3 years ago".

I've worked around that by dumping out the historical data and writing my own software to manage it (which runs about 20 times faster). Every now and then I add a new program to the result. I'll probably have a decent accounts package of my own one day.

If a customer or supplier changes their name you can't change the code by which you know them as without creating a new one and losing the history. This is just poor coding (in my not very humble opinion [IMNVHO hereafter]).

I don't like the way Sage puts on the bank account "Sales Receipt" or "Purchase Payment" without saying who the customer or supplier is.

If you want to dump out the data as a CSV (a horrible format again IMNVHO) the standard options are (a) naive about data with commas and quotes in (b) omit fields and in some cases all but outstanding transactions.

I think there should be an XML-based standard for accounts data.

I hate the way you can't change the dates on "recurring payments".

Dates are a horrible mess in Sage - I like the shortcuts in QB for "today", "tomorrow" etc. Only the other day I managed to fumble the date of a transaction to 15th, thought I must have forgotten it, put it in again and suddenly it popped up again. If you get the date wrong and press the "display calendar" button it bases the calendar on the date you got wrong not the one you want - this is particularly annoying going over the edges of montsh.

The thing lacks templates for common things you want to do - for example we receive lots of foreign currency payments and we need to do a string of transactions involving the sales ledger, currency adjustments and bank charges. It would be nice if you could set them up as a template.

Oddities like refund cheques against credit notes are really compilicated to do but they're not much easier in QB.

On the other hand QB, whilst the "drill-down" is handy I don't like the way it's all too easy to edit and clobber things and get into a horrible mess with the customer having one invoice and your online version saying something different.

QB is much nicer to use but it does in my mind get things wrong. Too many accountants are wedded to Sage though.

I think I'm slowly going to evolve my own software which does things the way I like.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
16th Mar 2005 14:37

No
Bin it mate, trust me you won't like it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Briar
17th Mar 2005 13:02

Sage is Safer
I agree with Robert - Sage is safer. If your Quickbooks gets some bugs into it and you decide to get another (unbugged and possibly newer) version although you can import debtors and suppliers details, you cannot import transaction details. Whereas in Sage, it is relatively easy to put transcations into Excel, edit out any errors, convert it to a csv file, and import into Sage.
For some time, I neither favoured Sage not Quickbooks - finding that each had certain qualities which the other didn't (thankfully, each has been trying to leapfrog the other so they are coming together in terms of bells and whistles).
But now I will not recommend Quickbooks because of its inability to import data (not just in case of disasters but also, for example, for post year end adjustments).
The audit trail facilities are much better in Sage. Also Quickbooks does not have a Fixed Asset Register which will automatically do depreciation every month (which Sage will).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By listerramjet
17th Mar 2005 16:52

it pains me to say it
but don't believe there is any comparison between Sage Line 50 and quickbooks. Sage Line 50 is widely used for good reasons, and if it is set up properly it represents value for money.

The point about the reports drill down is lightweight. Remember garbage in garbage out! Double entry, accounting periods, and import/export wins every time.

No doubt there are other products out there that are capable of competing with Sage, but none get near to Sage's market position. It will be interesting to see how well Microsoft does when they bundle financial ledgers with Office.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
17th Mar 2005 15:02

Why Quickbooks?
Other commentators are right in syaing that the 2 products take from each other year by year and that Sage is better suited to the background of accountants. It therefore essential when comparing details to ensure you are comparing latest versions.

I have used both and am nearly always happier using Quickbooks. It is also easier for clients to get the sort of reports they want as Sage has been more limited in this respect. I too like the drilldown facility but more than anything the 'find' facility on Quickbooks is vastly better than that on Sage.

£ for £ I think Quickbooks is better value but different people are more comfortable with with packages and I would try both before deciding which suits your style and your clients better.

Michael

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Albasas
16th Mar 2005 19:09

Meet The New Sage. Same As The Old Sage?
Thanks for the responses so far. Does Line 50 produce accounts in the statutory formats or do you export it elsewhere? Any idea of the cost of the single user version kindly given for free to me?

I'm finding QB's hard to push nowadays. I dont intend renewing my QB's professional subscription either. Sage have a big safe brand name with word of mouth assurances written in. I have looked at Pascal & VT as well. In my experience most small businesses find any business management software a chore anyway. Mainly because they wont pay the going rate for a competent book-keeper.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By AnonymousUser
17th Mar 2005 13:40

Prejudice?
Chris, that's the first time I've heard the accountant's preference for double entry described as a prejudice. Does the trial balance still need to balance?

Thanks (0)