Are ya'll ready for QB 2007?

I'll be ready for QB Pro 2009. (my next forced upgrade)

Using the term dump implies QB is garbage. Can we assume you are not a QB fanboy? Unless one is anal, the location the program files are installed in really does not matter.

Personally I think your got it wrong. It is Microsoft that is working hard to make sure legacy programs run well in Vista not the other way around. I suspect it will be at least one year if not more before QB incorporates any new Vista features.

"Allan Martin" :

I don't think QB is garbage. But you are right that I'm not exactly a fanboy -- which I would describe as one who turns a blind eye to a particular piece of software's shortcomings.

I am a software developer and have been writing apps that interface with QB for nearly 10 years, and have used QB since

1992. I've consulted to businesses and recommended and supported QB. I still think it is the best small business accounting package. But I do have issues with some of Intuit's policies. A rigid annual upgrade cycle for an application of this type is, in my opinion, a disservice to users. Starting with version 2000, it was frustrating to see features get broken or discarded along with arbitrary changes to the UI that drove many users I dealt with nuts. Granted, there are often some new features that are great, but it seems like the annual rush to get out the new version takes a toll.

As a developer, the SDK is both a godsend and a nightmare. On the plus side it provides a sanctioned method to enhance QB and get at the data. On the downside there are glaring holes such as crippled access to payroll data, serious performance issues on certain data requests, and a general lack of syncronization of addition of new QB features and their support in the SDK.

Ahhh, but that's the rub -- there are "program files" which are only read or executed, and then there are a program's data files which are written to as well. The files I mentioned QB dumping are it's data files: logs, ini files, even qbw files.

I don't think it is anal to take reasonable steps to ensure users can secure their computers. Microsoft has been pushing developers to not write to Program Files except during installation for years, for good reason. A given computer is much more secure when as much activity as possible takes place while the user is running with limited user rights, since limited users are restricted to read/execute access to program files and other key areas of the system. This makes it more difficult for malware to gain access to executable and critical system files. But until recently, QB would not run under limited user rights out of the box.

Microsoft is working hard to support legacy applicatons in Vista. But believe me, I have firsthand knowledge that there is going to be a lot of frustrated users out there with Vista regarding legacy apps.

As for QB and Vista, I have QB 2007 installed on Vista RC1 and as far as I can tell it is fully compliant. There was one little hiccup with the installer, but it seems to run fine and Intuit has put a lot of effort into putting their program data files in the proper locations.

I haven't bothered to try QB 2006 or earlier yet on Vista. I'm sure it can be massaged into working.

Your point well taken. I have also done a complete 360 concerning your fanboy status. You are a fanboy, stand up and be proud.

As far as the ridgid anual upgrade cycle I believe we can both agreee that if there wasn't as much competion out there the version cycles would be futher apart. Its the nature of the industry.

On the other hand... In the software industry, your greatest competitor is yourself. Unless you provide new, improved, or at least the screen re-arranged, software, your revenue stream almost vanishes.

"Allan Martin" :

I figured I'd be outed sooner or later... ;)

Agreed. Microsoft started it when they named Windows 95. As soon as you put a year in the name it sounds dated sooner. Hence MS's return to name names like XP and Vista. Intuit certainly isn't alone in too-fast upgrades. I do think there's a profit motive behind it as well. The industry has been wanting to go subscription for years to keep a steady cashflow, but users don't seem to like the idea so we have to pay for annual minor upgrades. (Well, regular users can, and should, skip a couple of versions, but us support people -- accountants,bookkeepers, developers -- have to get them all). I'm not only concerned about the upfront cost, since QB isn't terribly expensive -- it's all the juggling associated with rapid-fire versions that's a PITA. Personally, I would rather pay a higher price for a new significant version every 2 to 3 years. Putting my fanboy hat back on, the current way of doing things does keep the cost pretty darn low for new users and users that upgrade only when they get sunsetted.

Would anybody use the RC1 that I can download as a beta tester....I would like to update, but only if I am sure that the current file on the server is the absolute most recent one

"Dump" is perfectly good - if old-fashioned - geek for sending data to a location or peripheral, as in "dump to printer", "dump to card punch", "dump to tape".

Also Dump in the dumpster. Dump him/her and Dump the Hump.

2006 Pro works fine in Vista.