Well said, Gloria. That article was excellent and I can relate to much of it, to say the least.

You were born to be a writer! I endorse the opinions in your article 100%. Thanks for 'defending' Microsoft Dynamics GP. I know someone who (in a prior life) tried to implement AX in their company. At the $7,000,000.00 mark they abandoned the effort. I've also seen VAR's where EVERY new prospect is an AX sale opportunity. That's just plain wrong. And you've expressed this very nicely. I have this article on speed-dial to send to other's who ask about the future of GP. Mike Lupro - MCP

Having sold both packages for many years, your post makes very some very good points. Both packages work and are solid offerings, but they do serve different requirements. IF GP fits, don't buy a more expensive AX solution. But sometime GP does not fit. AX is more configurable and has more functionality in most areas than GP. More configurable means it fits more prospects scenarios than GP, but it takes more effort ($) to configure in the implementation than GP (but conversely this means less customisation($) than if you implemented GP, so... the trade off.) AX is positioned as the Dynamics Enterprise solution and people instantly think larger companies, but GP fits larger companies. It's all about Enterprise type requirements. Some large companies really don't have enterprise level requirements. If they have Enterprise level requirements AX may (and I say may, depending on requirements) be a better and possibly cheaper solution, through less customisation. Some sales I have made I would not have won without AX. Some I sales I would have lost if I put AX up. They all have their place in the market. Renown is asked constantly about the differences between Microsoft Dynamics AX vs. GP etc. So much so we wrote a page on it, including Microsoft’s own positioning; http://www.renown.com.au/MicrosoftDynamics/Dynamics_AX/Dynamics_AX_vs.aspx Hope that helps Michael