Most Up to Date Version of MS Project???
Featured Partner
Top Posters
Zine Eddine
2 posts
Alex Lyaschenko
27 posts
mxsiegel
0 posts
Mattvtek
0 posts
Gareth Evans
3 posts
PP Admin
3, 129 posts
Rajkamal Tangirala
5 posts
Rahul Kumar
1 posts
blake333_
0 posts
Jeamiell Ostrovsky
2 posts
Our Partners
Guys,
Glad to see Ive prompted some debate with this post, I wont hesitate to let you all know our conclusions following our review of software.
Cheers.
Another huge problem of the construction industry is that a lot of non planners because are able to put together few bars in MsProject they believe that the planner function is useless.
Yes, MS Project is everywhere like McDonalds. But still everywhere you can find restaurants that suggest the food that better fits your needs and your taste. But McDonalds is easy and cheap choice. Besides, those who choose and those who use freaquently are not the same.
Vladimir, you are 100% right.
1st point is software functionnalities and efficiency compared to customer needs.
2nd point is easyness of use for any category of users.
3rd point is price.
What is deviating competition is the fact that most of the PC users in the world do have Microsoft software within easy reach.
All the best
It is strange to me to see discussion like this on the site for professional planners. I am sure that every planner understands that if the PM software does not produce necessary analysis and reports then it does not matter how much does it cost. If the software packages produce the same data you can compare price. In any other case software functionality is a priority. Do you agree?
Be carefull when ivesting in MS-Project Server.
It seems that MS-Project is not expensive; think about it, you will have to purchase the following: MS-Project Pro for every project manager, MS-Project Server, MS-SQL Server, and the most expensive Customer Access License for every single user of the system who will access to Project Web Access: project managers, project resources, dept managers, company executives.
PSNext is much cheaper
Alan,
You should have a look at Sciforma (ex-Scitor) Project Scheduler 8.5 (Windows based) or PSNext (Full web interface).
Basically, PS is as "easy" as MS Project, compared to P3; and much more powerfull and efficient.
Download PS8 from www.sciforma.com
Alexandre
If you are interested in resources and costs as well as cashflow diagram options then you should try Spider Project. You will find everything you want and much more. Download its Demo from http://www.spiderproject.ru/spider_e.shtml
Regards,
Vladimir
We are doing contracts from minor £100,000 projects upto larger projects at £7million. We feel after seeing Pwerproject MSP doesnt give us enough options in terms of resources and costs as well as cashflow diagram etc. We feel that we should give MSP 2003 a try as well as P3 and Powerproject.
Any useful comment are welcome!
Many Thanks,
Alan
Hi Alan
Something else to consider when evaluating the software is the actual future use of the tool, eg will you be assigning resources and costs, and will you want to attach a time recording feature.
Having been caught out a few times with these future requirements always something to bear in mind when your playing with budgets for these kinds of tools
Steve
Raj,
Thank you for your info. I have tried P3 on a trial version and found it to be a bit more complex to use, however I have recently tried Powerproject and found it to be quite good.
My organisation are currently evaluating systems and feel it would be fair to have a look at the most recent version of MSP.
Again, thanks for your help,
Alan.
Currently the Latest Version of MSP-2003 is availbale. Lot of discussions were being held to compare MSP & P3 on Planning Planet. I believe P3 is no doubt more inteligent software. But again one has to do his requirement & commercial evaluation before choosing any of the above two softwares. For simple project MSP is very handy and esier to P3 but for complex analysis P3 is easy & more reliable. You can do the analysis to the some extent in MSP also but carefully.