Switch toQuickBooks PRO 2009 from 2006 questions

Apr 02, 2009 3 Replies

When we recently updated the tables in Basic Payroll under QuickBooks Pro 2009, we got the message that it would no longer calculate payroll taxes after May 31, 2009, even though we had purchased a 12 month Basic Payroll license in January of 2009. I was informed that we would get a credit for the unused portion, if we did not upgrade, but I was disappointed that we were not warned when we purchased the Payroll license, since they were told we were using QuickBooks Pro 2009.



We did decide it was reasonable to purchase QuickBooks Pro 2009 at this time. Office Max has it for $99.99 this week, and they threw in 3 other Intuit packages in their individual retail boxes One is the 12 Month Basic Payroll Package. (The packaging indicates that the payroll subscription has to be activted before 5/31/2010 and within 90 days of purchase, although I don't know how they can check the 90 day part) The others were Web Creator and Credit Card processing. We also had a $15 off coupon, so it was a little under $92 after sales tax.



I do have some questions. (FYI, we run Windows XP SP3 and high priority updates are current.)



Is the "Look and Feel" of QuickBooks Pro 2009 pretty similar to



2006?

I noticed on a screen shot of the home screen was that the Banking Account Balances were not displayed. Is there an option to display them?



Are than any known issues if we leave 2006 on the machine, in case we want to look at an archived Company File at some time in the future? We left QuickBooks for Windows 5.0 on the machine, and there did not seem to be any issues when Pro 2009 was installed.



There are references to Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0. I read somewhere that it is on the installation disk. The only .Net on the machine is 1.1. Is .NET 2.0 required to run Pro 2009 and Basic Payroll? If .NET 2.0 is necessary, would I be better off to install .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1, so that I would not risk any problems with anything funny in the version on the disk, if something else (I read somewhere that if it detects .NET 2.0, Windows Update will want to install 3.5 Service Pack 1) forces me to get 3.5? I would think the QuickBooks Pro 2009 installation package would not try to overwrite the 2.0 that is supposed to be included in



3.5. Does anyone know if that is correct?

Thanks for any incite you can provide.


It does not matter what you told Intuit..the software will detect that you have 2006 running and your payroll subscription will stop working properly after 5/31/09.

That's a pretty good deal.

Yes.The major changes to the user interface were made with 2006.

Account balances are displayed on the home page. You can "hide" the list but I don't know of an option to remove that option. Poor screen shot?

I hope not. I have 2006/7/8/9 installed on my machine. Just install them to their own folder. Just watch the screen carefully when you do the installation. I can't remember the actual sequence of the installation but make sure you specify that you are not doing an upgrade.

My XP Pro machine has .net 1.1, 2.0Sp1 and 3.5sp1 but I just upgraded that machine to XP SP3 this week so I don't know when 3.5SP1 was installed. I would use the windows update process and get fully updated before installing QB2009. I'd rather use a MS provided update instead of relying on an out-of-date upgrade on the Intuit CD. Get your machine to 3.5SP1 so that you know the source of the installation. Here is a link to .net 3.5SP1:

formatting link

It did not overrite 2.0 on my machine. It installed 3.5 as an additional component on my computer.

How did you miss the 2.0 installation on your machine?

My original post was wrong! We were using QuckBooks Pro 2006, and that is what they were told when we purchased the Payroll license in January 2009. The sales person also knew that, since he looked up the account records. That is why I thought we should have been warned. I knew they don't sell payroll for versions over 3 years old, but I was not aware that a payroll license with time left on it would essentially be deactivated. I presume it was just a mistake that we were not warened. Sales people handle lots of calls and they are human. I better have some tollerance for human error considering my own slip-up in the info about what I told them .

formatting link

Thanks very much for all the information.

With tax work to do, I don't plan to make any changes that are not abolutely necessary for a couple of weeks. I will then do a full hard drive backup, in case something goes wrong. I was leaning toward using Windows Update, to install .NET 3.5 and your post has convinced me to go that route. (I have seen some posts indicating that some people using other methods have had some Windows Update issues later involving .NET.) Then I will install QuickBooks 2009 and bring it to the latest revision before I open company files and activate payroll.

The only software I run that uses .NET is QuickBooks, and PRO

2006 (our current verion) works with .NET version 1.1. When I use Windows update, I use custom mode which allows me to delay any updates I might be afraid of. I believe I have gotten high priority updates for 1.1 which have been installed. For me, the later versions of .NET were listed under optional software.

As I understand it, Windows Update for Windows XP considers .NET Versions 2.0 and beyond to be optional for a machine that only has .NET Version 1.1. As soon as 2.0 or later is installed, Windows Update will classify the 3.5 Service Pack 1 and updates to it as High Prioity.

Again - Thanks very much for the info!

While your payroll in 2006 will be "deactivated" it should be available immediately in 2009. Just enter the appropriate payroll license codes before running the first payroll in 2009. Don't forget to check for payroll and QB updates before doing your first paycheck.

formatting link
>

It is my understanding that 3.5SP3 fixes numerous issues created by version

2 that prompted them to label 3.5SP1 as a High Priority.

I typically do custom updates too but when MS classifies something as a high priority I usually end up installing it unless I see something that warns me to avoid that particular update.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required