snipped-for-privacy@nada.com wrote: :: On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 21:29:27 -0400, "Andrew" wrote: :: ::: snipped-for-privacy@nada.com wrote: ::::: I would like to change the file name, not the account name. The ::::: current file name is Wachovia and I want to change it to Wells ::::: Fargo now that the conversion is complete for my accounts. Is it ::::: as easy as changing the names of the Wachovia files in My ::::: Documents/Quicken/ folder by replacong Wachovia with WellsFargo? ::::: ::::: I don't see anywhere from within Quicken to do this. ::: ::: You ONLY keep track of one or more accounts in this Quicken file? ::: Although of course you can do this, I just wonder why you wouldn't ::: want to keep the file name generic so that, after time, you use it ::: to put in other assets and liabilities (credit card accounts, other ::: bank accounts, etc.). Why limit the name of the file to one ::: institution?? (I am really probing to ensure you understand what ::: Q is all about, really.) :: :: What Quicken is all about depends on the user. For me, keeping the :: institutions separate works great for what I want to do, and has :: since Quicken for DOS. I don't have recurring payments, like :: mortgage or car or credit cards. The only regular withdrawal is for :: health insurance and that's down directly with the bank. I have a :: single brokerage account and two credit cards at diiferent places. :: I use Quicken to control where I have to go to do various things :: that are different to me. Putting everything in one Quicken file :: seems to me to be like putting everything on your computer on the C: :: drive.
Yeah, I had a feeling you were using multiple Quicken files across several institutions. There is a tremendous advantage of using one Q file per person (like Han delineated); complete reports, ability to cross-link accounts with transactions, easy search capabilities etc. So, for example, if you write a check from your bank to your credit card (two different 'institutions' in many cases), you'd end up with having to enter TWO transactions, each of which is separate and reeks of the possibility of error.
But, I am not going to try to convince you to do this. Whatever works for you. I will say I've NEVER heard of anyone doing this however. And the downside seems so obvious to me I'd never consider it.
To use your analogy, it's like buying a separate computer to run individual applications. But again, to each his (or her) own.