WHICH IS BETTER OPTION IN THE U.S. MARKET SAP CRM or SAP SD

HI I WISH TO DO A COURSE IN SAP I HAVE TO DECIDE BETWEEN 2 OPTIONS SHOULD I DO SAP SD or SAP CRM WHICH ONE IS A BETTER OPTION AS I AM AN M.B.A. IN MARKETING WITH NO I.T. OR TECH KNOWLEDGE AT ALL. SO WHAT CAN YOU RECCOMEND PLEASE REPLY IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED
THANKS

Hello Monty,
I m located in Mumbai, India.
Surely I would have helped in India.
As far as NY or NJ is concerned I don't know much.
Here in India we have SIEMENS or GENOVATE which provide SAP Cerification.
Search for some authorized training acadamey of SAP there, search on net........
Definitely U will succeed.
Reward me points, if this helps.
Anubhav
[email protected]

Similar Messages

What is the difference in SAP CRM and SAP R/3

Hi Experts,
I am new to the CRMs system. Please clarify the following points.
what is the difference between SAP CRM system and SAP R/3?
In SAP R/3 contains the different module like SD , FI, MM, HR... Like that in SAP CRM also have different modules.?
How diffrent SAP CRM from SAP R/3?..
How to know the Basics of the CRM?
The ABAPers which are doing the coding in SAP R/3 is ok to for doing the coding in SAP CRM also. or any difference is there?
Please clarify
Regards

Hi
SAP R/3 is the core ERP package software with various modules integrated like SD,MM,PP,FICO to automate the business process in the organisations and companies and to increase the productivity by automating the manual processes and SAP CRM is New dimentional module of SAP to focus on the Customer relations and customer centric information from all angels at 360 degrees for marketing sales and service areas with different channels like internet sales interaction center and field sales (mobile sales)
Refer to the link below for CRM
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_crm50/helpdata/en/1a/023d63b8387c4a8dfea6592f3a23a7/frameset.htm
http://help.sap.com/bp_crmv250/CRM_DE/index.htm
Reward points if helpful
Dinaker vikas

Which is better option to trigger data to XI

Hi Experts,
Happy new Year to all of you.
here I have one query, How we decide at the ERP side, whether we have to use IDOC, RFC and Proxy to trigger the Datafor the XI Interface. I know for the XI Performabce wise proxy is better option.
Please give more inputs of yours on this.
Many Thanks.

>
> here I have one query, How we decide at the ERP side, whether we have to use IDOC, RFC and Proxy to trigger the Datafor the XI Interface. I know for the XI Performabce wise proxy is better option.
>
Suppose if you develope scenario between IDoc->PI> in this case you need to import IDoc from SAP System in to PI,when you triegegr IDoc in ERP/ECC the day will reacches PI System.
If you develop RFC>PI-> IN THIS CASE THE PROCEDURE ALSO SAME,like import RFC in to PI,trigger RFC in ERP system...
When you go for Prosy,you need to specify the logic in ABAP Proxy class which program,and interface going to use.
we can say Proxy performce better,but it depends on volume of Data.
Regards,
Raj

Which is better option SAP XI vs webservices to interact with Biztalk

HI everyone,
We have biztalk as integration tool. I would like to know is it feasible to implement Biztalk with SAP XI to communicate with our SAP ECC server. I heard it will be over weight to use both Biztalk and SAP XI coz each will have its own message box and leads to more process time. So we are planning to use Biztalk with SAP webservices. So please let me know which is better as cost wise and work wise biztalk with SAP XI or Biztalk with SAP Web services.
SAP Guys please take some time to provide some useful information. it will be much appreciated.
cheers
ram

SAP XI and BizTalk both offer a tight integration of Web Services into the engine and development tools. Using the SAP XI SOAP Adapter enables the consumption and publication of Web Services based on the SOAP 1.1 protocol according to the WS-Basic Profile 1.0.
The BizTalk SOAP Adapter also offers Web Services support based on SOAP 1.1
support and Basic Profile 1.0 capabilities.
Anyway XI and Biztalk can interoperate, you should evaluate the scenario you are going to implement.
Based on transactionality, trhroughtput, communication etc, the following scenarios are in focus:
Synchronous and non-transactional communication
Synchronous and transactional communication
Asynchronous and non-transactional communication
Asynchronous and transactional communication
This leads to eight scenarios overall, as both hubs may act as the initiating starting point of the communication. The choice of communication types for a certain integration process depends on business needs, technical needs and performance considerations.
if it may be useful rewards point are appreciated

Which is better with games, the Pro or Air (both 13')?

I am debating whether or not to purchase an Air or Pro for myself in March. I will be using it for school, and will hopefully make it last all the way through college (8 years). I also will download music and movies, as well. On top of all that, I would like to play games on it, such as GTA and Minecraft. I won't play that often, maybe if I have spare time. I'm planning on getting one that has 256 GB with an Intel Core i7 Processor and 8GB RAM. Which one will perform better?

Macbooks are not idealized as gaming machines, rather productivity, however the the macbook pro quad core with autonomous graphics is the best choice for gaming.
Though the macbook Air is my favorite Mac and will plays games, I absolutely would not recommend same as a gaming machine.
The Pro without any question at all will perform better, and the top end Pro, logically, the best.

Which is better?? The Zen Touch, or the Zen Sle

I want to upgrade my Xtra and want to know which is the better buy. Or is it just better to get an Ipod?

sf87tbs: It really depends on what you are looking for.
if you are looking for a player:
-with a long battery life?: Touch (24 hours) VS sleek (8 hours)
-in-built FM radio and FM recorder?: Sleek (the Touch has an external FM remote available)
-have removable storage function?: Sleek (the touch has it too, just that you need to install drivers on any of the computer you intend to use it on)
-based on design, looks and weight?: sleek (for me)
-newer model?: sleek
For more information, you may like to make your own comparison:
Sleek: http://us.creative.com/products/prod...Specifications
Touch: http://sg.creative.com/products/prod...uct=0274&nav=2
Cheerios

How to stop the replication of a particular business partner from sap crm to sap ecc - BDOC

Hi experts,
I need to know the procedure to stop replicating a particular BP #1234(example) from CRM to ECC. I don't want this BP to be replicated in ECC as in ECC this BP will not be maintained.
BDOC failure:
In my current scenario BDOCs are failing with error like "No BP exist". Since this BP #1234 itself is not present in ECC, the error is obvious.
This BP #1234 is defined in CRM as an Org. Unit. We don't maintain Org. Unit in ECC. All other BP are saved under this BP(#1234).
Issue:
So whenever a new BP(example #ABC) is created, the BUPA_REL type BDOC fails with error "BP with number #1234 doesnot exist.
I don't want this to happen. So what i found if we can stop the replication of this particular BP #1234, then if we make any change to the relation BP, this error should not come.
Please help me to resolve this BDOC error.
regards,
Vicky

Hi Ganesh,
1st we create a Organization structure through tcode-PPOSA_CRM.
A business Partner is created which represent the Organization Structure partner ID.
2nd we create a BP through and do a Org. assignment in tcode - PPOSA_CRM.
A business Partner is created which represent the any customer partner ID.
As soon as you do an assignment,assigning the customer BP to the org BP, a BUPA_REL BDoc flow but it fails.
Error we get in the BDoc: "BP XXXX doesnot exist"
Reason: Since this Org BP is not present in ECC, the BDoc fails in CRM.
Possible Resolution 1:
1. I created this Org. BP in ECC through CRMM_BUPA_MAP
2. The BP got created.
3.Then i tried to assign a new customer BP to Org BP to check if the issue is resolved, but we get another type of error 'BP is not defined as internal Org. Unit".
I don't know how to define BP as an internal Org. Unit in ECC?
Can you please help me in this.
Possible Resolution 2:
If i can stop this particular BUPA_REL BDoc which contains this Org.unit BP, from getting replicated, means when i assign the customer BP to Org.Unit BP, BUPA_REL should not be triggered.
I don't know if this is possible or not, but if this is possible, i would consider this a last option to resolve this issue.
Please let me know if this helps you to understand the issue i am facing?
regards,
Vicky

In terms of performance which is better?

Hi I have a query ...
I have table t1 which has 1.5 million records .
now ,
which will be a better option ?
Pls note I need to do it at run time from a procedure.
create procedure p1
is
begin
execute immediate 'create table tidup nologging parallel as select * from t1';
end;
Or having the structure and do inserts in append mode ?
say ,
create procedure p1
is
begin
insert /*+append*/ into tidup select * from t1;
Commit;
end;
I knew that a DDL is far faster than a DML .
Kindly let me know if I am correct or is inserting in append mode is faster ?
Regards
SHUBH

Hi I have a query ...
have table t1 which has 1.5 million records .
now ,
which will be a better option ?The one that runs the fastest, obviously.
Pls note I need to do it at run time from a
procedure.
create procedure p1
is
begin
execute immediate 'create table tidup
nologging parallel as select * from t1';
nd;Creating tables at runtime is a bad idea. If you need temporary tables, use Global Temporary Tables.
Or having the structure and do inserts in append mode
say ,
create procedure p1
is
begin
insert /*+append*/ into tidup select * from
t1;
Commit;This would be better than the first option in terms of sensible coding.
I knew that a DDL is far faster than a DML .Oh really? Kindly provide proof of this.
Kindly let me know if I am correct or is inserting in
append mode is faster ?Logically think about it.
1 = Create Table and Insert Records
2 = Insert Records
Which do you think may take a smidgen longer to perform?

Which is better for User Managed Hot backup - running in cron or oracle scheduler

We are taking hot backup in our environment by using sql script of just begin backup, host copy and end backup
Can we use this script to be put in cron for weekly two times or to use oracle scheduler .
Which is better option and why?

The answer to your question depens on your condition. Do you have more experienced Unix admin or DBA?
From my point of view cron is better becuase all you need is SQL*Plus utility and shell script:
export ORACLE_SID=...
sqlplus <username>/<password> as sysdba <<EOF
ALTER TABLESPACE .. BEGIN BACKUP;
host copy ..
ALTER TABLESPACE .. END BACKUP;
EXIT
EOF

Which Is Better Time Machine or Backup

So I just got a new iMac plus a 1T external drive. I have been using backup on my old mini-mac with an external drive plus I used the drive for iTunes and iPhoto. So which is better TM or the old backup (which I had no problems with). I really do not do a lot on the iMac, no work just iLife stuff.
If I use TM can I partition the 1T to use one 500 GB for TM and another 500 GB for any odds and ends I simply want to store there (I plan to convert old videos to digital)?
Thanks

Hi! The drive for a bootable clone should be the same size as the internal main drive as should be the drive for TM. To create a bootable clone you can use the disk utility but I prefer SUPERDUPER and if you pay the 27.95 you get the ability to schedule auto backups! Tom
To use the disk utility: Kappy's method
How to Clone Using Restore Option of Disk Utility
1. Open Disk Utility from the Utilities folder.
2. Select the backup or destination volume from the left side list.
3. Click on the Erase tab in the DU main window. Set the format type to Mac OS Extended (journaled, if available) and click on the Erase button. This step can be skipped if the destination has already been freshly erased.
4. Click on the Restore tab in the DU main window.
5. Select the backup or destination volume from the left side list and drag it to the Destination entry field.
6. Select the startup or source volume from the left side list and drag it to the Source entry field.
7. Double-check you got it right, then click on the Restore button.
8. Select the destination drive on the Desktop and press COMMAND-I to open the Get Info window. At the bottom in the Ownership and Permissions section be sure the box labeled "Ignore Permissions on this Volume" is unchecked. Verify the settings for Ownership and Permissions as follows: Owner=system with read/write; Group=admin with read/write; Other with read-only. If they are not correct then reset them.
For added precaution you can boot into safe mode before doing the clone.
Message was edited by: Thomas Bryant

Which is better? Resize datafile or add datafile in same diskgroup.

Hi All,
Can you explain which is better option between adding a datafile or resizing one in a diskgroup with 20 disks?
Regards,
Avi

hello buddy,
Since you know that a small file datafile has a limitation of 32gb then if your tablespace is out of this space then the solution is add more dfiles, also, in my point of view less datafiles in a hughe database is better for evite ckpt contention. The answer is dependo always for your situation!!!
I hope it helps
best regards,
Rodrigo Mufalani
www.mufalani.com.br

Which is Better?: Add to multiprovider; Create new ODS; Create new Cube

Which is a better choice:
Add to multiprovider; create additional ODS; create additional Cube?
I have this data flow: 5 ODSes which are aggregated into a single Cube1. A multiprovider then sits on the Cube1. I run Report1 against the multiprovider and from the output, I want to jump (through a jump query) to a much more detailed report.
(information from the different 5 ODSes will be coming together to make a meaning record in the detailed report)
Which of these will be the best modeling approach at this point:
1. Bring in all the detail level information in the 5 ODSes into the multiprovider and create the detail report (against the multiprovider).
2. Create a new ODS and bring in all the detail information from the 5 ODSes into this new ODS_6 and create the detail report against this newly combined ODS_6?
3. Create new Cube2 and bring in all the detail information from the 5 ODSes into this single cube and create the detail report against this newly combined Cube? i.e. without bringing Cube 2 in the multiprovider.
a) Which of these options is the typical thing to do?
b) From performance point of view, which one is better? Any reasons?
c) Do you have a better recommendation to get my report based on the original multiprovider; as well as get the detail (through the jump query)?
Thanks

Everything is based on how much data you are reading.
Remember: the first and second options are slower because even if you are creating query against the Multiprovider in the first option, both options read directly from the ODS. Technically, ods is not optimized for reporting (reading). ODS is just like a normal relational database table, unless you use the key to read data from, it is very slow (everything is not indexed).
Option 3, is much better in respect of design and performance. Reason, cube support multidimensional analysis, where all char is related with SID which is being generated automatically which increases performance.
My recommendation:
Create another ods (combine all the other ODSes) just like you did in option two, and push summarized data in the cube and detail data in this ods. Write a report again the cube when needed jump to the ods.
Hope that helps.
thanks.
Wond

Which is better to install Oracle 11g database based on ASM or Filesystem

We will install 2 sets of Oracle 11.2.0.3 on Redhat Linix 5.6 and configure Data Guard for them further -- one will be a primary DB server, the other will be a physical standby DB server. The Oracle DB stoage is based on SAN Array Disk with 6TB size. Now there are two options to manage the DB datafiles:
1. Install Oracle ASM
2. Create the tranditional OS filesystem
Which is better? in the past, our 10g data guard environment is not based on Oracle ASM.
Someone think if we adopt the oracle ASM, the shortcomings are :
1. as there is one more instance that will consume more memory and resource.
2. as the ASM file system cannot be shown out on the OS level directly such as "df" command, the disk utilization monitor job will be more difficult. at least it cannot be supervised at OS level.
3. as the DB bshoule be done the daily incremental backup (Mon-Sat) to Local Backup Drive. the bakup job must be done by RMAN rather than user-managed script.
Who can provide some advices? Thanks very much in advance.

user5969983 wrote:
We will install 2 sets of Oracle 11.2.0.3 on Redhat Linix 5.6 and configure Data Guard for them further -- one will be a primary DB server, the other will be a physical standby DB server. The Oracle DB stoage is based on SAN Array Disk with 6TB size. Now there are two options to manage the DB datafiles:
1. Install Oracle ASM
2. Create the tranditional OS filesystem
Which is better? in the past, our 10g data guard environment is not based on Oracle ASM. ASM provides a host of new features ito data management, and performance - to the extent that you can rip out the entire existing storage system, replace it with a brand new storage system, without a single second of database downtime.
Someone think if we adopt the oracle ASM, the shortcomings are :
1. as there is one more instance that will consume more memory and resource.Not really relevant on 64bit h/w architecture that removes limitations such a 4GB of addressable memory. On the CPU side... heck, my game PC at home has a 8 core 64bit CPU. Single die and dual core CPUs belong to the distant past.
Arguing that an ASM instance has overheads would be silly. And totally ignores the wide range of real and tangible benefits that ASM provides.
2. as the ASM file system cannot be shown out on the OS level directly such as "df" command, the disk utilization monitor job will be more difficult. at least it cannot be supervised at OS level.That is a A Very Good Thing (tm). Managing database storage from o/s level is flawed in many ways.
3. as the DB bshoule be done the daily incremental backup (Mon-Sat) to Local Backup Drive. the bakup job must be done by RMAN rather than user-managed script.
rman supports ASM fully.
I have stopped using cooked file systems for Oracle - I prefer ASM first and foremost. The only exceptions are tiny servers with a single root disk that needs to be used for kernel, database s/w, and database datafiles. (currently these are mostly Oracle XE systems in my case, and configured that way as XE does not support ASM and is used as a pure cost decision).

Which is better (Boot Camp) or (Parallel / VMware Fusion)???

Hi guys,
I want to install Windows along OS X...
now what is better?
to install Windows via Boot Camp or via Parallel / VMware fusion??
and if through one of the virtual machine softwares, which is BETTER?? the Parallel for Desktop or the VMware fusion one???
Thank you

Guitarcal wrote:
I use both boot camp and vmware fusion. A neat feature of vmware fusion is you can access your boot camp partition as a virtual machine from vmware. This way, you can have both. I believe parallels might also let you do that but I have never used it. This has been helpful to me if I need to access a file from the boot camp partition quickly and easily without rebooting my computer.
I agree with dwb that xp is probably going to be the best os to run through a virtualization software.
I honestly don't think you can go wrong with either parallels or vmware fusion. There is also a FREE software package created by sun called VirtualBox.
Here is the link to there home page: http://www.virtualbox.org/
I hear and read that it is excellent as well.
Hope this helps.
I just installed parallels and you can use your bootcamp partition for the vm with parallels as well. Its pretty slick. Use it for light applications with parallel, reboot to bootcamp for graphics intensive ones.
Cheers.

Which is better with a NAS: using Sharing or Library location?

So I've got my brand new NAS up and running (Netgear ReadyNAS 104).
It has a Music folder with an iTunes server so I can use it as a Shared Library.
But I can also point my iTunes to the NAS and use the library directly from the NAS.
So which is better? Using the NAS as a Shared Library or use the NAS as the primary Library?
I want multiple devices (primarily Apple devices, but perhaps also a Windows laptop) to be able to use the media.
What about library management? Like when ripping an audio CD. When I use the NAS as a shared library, do I need to manually copy the CD to the NAS iTunes share and have iTunes re-scan?

Well... I downloaded LibreOffice and Writer2ePub and openned my Atlantis doc in it and converted to epub file. The good news is it didn't cost a dime.
The bad news is one image is now tiny which is odd because it was 600 dpi so I would think it could be displayed larger, not smaller but maybe the epub conversion downsizes a higher res image (some are 300dpi).
The cover image shows up in iBook as a wide and short image. The cover itself is tiny and then it just fills in black for the rest of the screen width. I used a large, high res image.
Then there was something with the TOC. It created a good TOC but then there's another page with a none hypertext version and a big rectangle error message and the TOC only shows about half of the chapters.
There was some advice on the internet about centering images in iBook. It seems that iBook doesn't recognize text justification coded in a document. So you have to embed another element on the same line as the image (html stuff) and give it a center alignment tag. I haven't done any html ebook stuff so I may not be explaining that the best way possible.
So, I'm going to take another look at my iBook Author version and see if I can live with that. If not I'll probably try Pages although I don't know what other problems I'll run into. Fun, fun, fun

WHICH IS BETTER OPTION IN THE U.S. MARKET SAP CRM or SAP SD

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for