If you want Intuit to fix what they broke

Please clarify. If I schedule an online repeating monthly transaction to occur on the 1st of the monthly and start 60 days from now? Is that what you mean? Also, how often does one do this?

It has been my understanding and experience that with online repeating transactions Quicken has only ever downloaded the next 30 days worth of transactions into the register. What feature are you talking about?

Huh? Again, Quicken only keeps the next 30 days of online repeating transactions active in the register.

You never could "edit" online repeating transactions or scheduled transactions for that matter if one was scheduled. You have always had to cancel and resubmit an online repeating transaction when changes are to be made. For scheduled transactions you have to delete or wait for when they are no longer scheduled to modify things.

Because, AFAICT it's never existed nor does it exist now - at least not as per your description. Perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to describe - maybe an example would clarify.

Something tells me if there is some sort of weird transaction that you seem to require it will not be popular. Gotta love people who attempt to start some sort of write in complain whenever a feature or perceived feature changes. ;-)

"Mike" wrote in news:w6OdnV2YMO32t snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

I just a few days ago had to fiddle with the automatic insertion of my paycheck as a regular transaction (I can't get along with the paycheck feature, since I need to transfer my 403b7 withholding to a temporary asset account before it is at a different date invested in several different accounts - the paycheck doesn't let me choose the account I set up for this BOOOOOOOO).

I now have a deposit transaction that is entered 53 days ahead of time as a split transaction. I currently have Txs for 5/6, 5/20, and 6/3 in the register, entered automatically.

Please note that I struggled with this quite a bit, especially since I could not just copy a current transaction, but had to enter a new scheduled recurring Tx with *all* the splits entered manually. However, it now finally works fine. I have Q2005 DL, US, supposedly with latest patches, running on fully patched Win XP Home.

Take any monthly recurring transaction - gas bill, electric bill, phone bill, etc. Set them up so more than one are inserted in your register (by using recurring transactions and a sufficient lead time). You then get the ability to see when your bills are due well in advance. I've been doing this for all my recurring transactions for almost 20 years.

I was not talking just about online transactions (a feature I do not use); I mentioned them because I was told the feature change only effected printed checks and online transactions (which I mentioned at the start of my post).

Okay, which makes me wonder even more why they changed the way recurring transactions work. And, again, I don't use online transactions.

In many calendar applications, you have the option to have repeating tasks "regenerate upon completion." The feature maybe new to Quicken, but it is hardly new. And it may not exactly describe the way recurring transactions work now, but calling them recurring transactions is inaccurate as well.

As for your example, I will try to be more specific. I entered all of my recurring transactions into Quicken with a 90 day lead time. Paycheck, mortgage, utilities, insurance, etc., along with an estimate for things like food (that's on a weekly basis); I can then see at any point within the next three months what my budget will look like. I tried the forecast feature, and it not only fails miserably (frequently telling me I have a negative balance) just on providing information, but requires a lot of extra work if I need to make a change. Also, by setting up the series of recurring transactions I can easily make adjustments when needed (something the forecast feature does not provide).

My transactions are pretty standard, and I've yet to find an explanation why I shouldn't want to have something as basic as recurring transactions put back. Intuit said that in order to have this basic functionality restored they would need to hear from end users. It's also interesting Intuit makes no mention of this feature change when advertising Quicken 2005 (if it's my perception that it changed, than it is Intuit's perception as well, since that is who told me about the change).

While you may not use Quicken to enter recurring transactions, other people likely do use this feature. If you are someone who would like to see this feature put back, you can contact Intuit at:

Intuit Inc.

2632 Marine Way Mountain View, CA 94043-1126 Phone: 650-944-6000 Fax: 650-944-3699 Toll Free: 800-446-8848 William V. (Bill) Campbell , Chairman Stephen M. (Steve) Bennett, President, CEO, and Director Robert B. (Brad) Henske, SVP and CFO

And if you do not use recurring transactions, then you don't have to do anything.

Mike

That's an awful long lead time....

So you're talking more about budgeting than scheduled transactions (Yes I know scheduled transactions are useful for budgeting purposes...)

Do you have any income that is scheduled or just expenses?

I'm not convinced they are missing yet. I still have mine...

Regardless, hardly a reason to make a stink about things...

Personally, I could care less. Repeating such information is stupid.

So - according to you, knowing more than 90 days worth of your financial data is too long a lead time. And while Intuit has already stated that scheduling transactions for printed checks and online transactions no longer create, well, scheduled transactions, you chose not to believe them. And while removing a feature that is essential to Quicken may not be a sufficient reason for you to contact them about it (though, once again, this is precisely what Intuit told me to do), apparently my interest in having it corrected is sufficiently aggravating for you to respond. I find it amusing you say you could care less, when you clearly care enough to to defend a feature you do not use, have little if any idea why I use it, and no idea why Intuit removed it.

I have been called many things, but stupid is not one of them. But given that you feel comfortable judging me without having a clue as to who I am, I suppose lack of information does not mean much to you.

Mike

I didn't say that.

I create scheduled transactions and guess what - they are created! And down the line they are even processed! Imagine that... What are you talking about?

"Essential to Quicken"? Geeze I'm managing to get along without whatever the hell you are saying is so horribly broken...

Your interest in having a problem corrected is understandable. Your charge in here to start some sort of write in campaign for your ill defined cause is asinine.

Hey I can't help it if you are incapable of explaining yourself.

I find that very hard to believe. Even 2 year olds are called stupid by their friends regularly.

I do not require knowledge of who you are to judge your actions and words. They speak for themselves.

Good luck with your campaign there bud. I see everybody is also suffering from the malady that you describe. I'm certain that Intuit will respond to your obviously dire straights.

Make that 3-year olds. I lived a sheltered life. ;)

Mike,

I have to agree with Andrew on this one. Although a specific feature might be tremendously valuable to you, it might be irrelevant or annoying to many or most others. I think it is far from an essential feature. If this "feature" were never documented (I don't know if it was or wasn't), it could be technically classified as a "bug" that Intuit recently fixed.

Personally, I have never needed the capability you have cited. Scheduled transactions have always worked the way I wanted. Only one month entered at one time. If I saw more than one month at a time, I would consider that somewhat annoying (I used to enter some transactions like property taxes way in advance and having them in the register too early caused the final balance to become negative which was distracting to me). That is not to say that you are not entitled to your opinion or that you should not try to convince Intuit to change this back. However, it is not hard for me to imagine that Intuit won't put this high on the priority list. I do know that often the time it takes to implement something is small compared to the time it takes to verify that it works properly (especially in conjunction with all of the other multitudes of Quicken features) and, more importantly, does not break any other features.

One last comment. I find it useful to understand how other people (like yourself) use Quicken differently than I do. Often it points out some capability that I have not been utilizing. This newsgroup has helped me get the most out of Quicken. Your post and your position has made me think more about this whole issue.

Good luck, Peter

This isn't new to 2005. I know for a fact this is how it worked in

2004.

I believe it was that way in 2003. I don't recall for sure - it's been a while since I used that version.

I've been using scheduled transactions as long as Quicken has had the feature, and I started using way back when ... Quicken 3 for DOS. Like you, I like to enter my transactions two or sometimes three months in advance so I can see what my $$ situation will look like. However, I would not want Quicken to automatically enter scheduled transactions more than one month at a time. When I want to see my $$ situation three months in advance, I simply go into the Scheduled Transaction list, select the transaction and click "Enter" as many times as I want the transaction entered. Voila, I can see however many months of transactions I like. I have many scheduled transactions and don't find this method a burden at all. Frankly I don't think Intuit ever documented scheduled transactions working as you indicate, and I never saw them work that way. AFAIC, Quicken handles scheduled transactions just fine.

Regards,

Margaret

I think the problem here is one that is common and that is one of description, definition of terms, etc. A scheduled transaction is one that is scheduled to occur at some time in the future. What then is an "automatically enter[ed] scheduled transaction"? Answer: It ain't a scheduled transaction at all really - it's an entered transaction! Oh it's an entered transaction for a future date but it is, by its definition, entered into the register is it not? Indeed Margaret's description here indicates that she clicks enter, thereby entering the transaction into the register, several times in order to "flush out" a scheduled transactions for X months.

Seems like the OP and Maraget herself are both trying to see what their situation is months in advance. There are many ways to do such a thing in Quicken already. For one the calendar will show and take into account future scheduled transactions and the various forecasting tools also allow to project scheduled and repeating transactions as well as offer methods to project those regularly occurring expenditures that you haven't scheduled.

The downside of actually entering those future scheduled transactions is that they have an effect on the register which now shows a future, often negative balance. Additionally, if you do online payments those payments will be sent to the bank.

I used Quicken 2004, 2003 and 2002 - it worked as I expected in all those versions. If that were not sufficient, Intuit has specifically stated this feature changed with 2005. I'm not sure what fact you are certain of, but it's not what I've described.

Mike

This brings me back to my original observation that neither you nor Andrew have responded to: what is the point of this change in the way recurring transactions work? If you and Andrew (or anyone else) don't want to have more than one instance of a scheduled transaction displayed at a time, and you use a lead time of 30 days or less, than the way Quicken has worked (as you point out) keeps that from happening. Why make a change that offers nothing new other than fewer options?

I think part of the problem is we all use Quicken in different ways, and I've always enjoyed the fact that it can be used in a variety of different ways. I am not asking anyone else to use Quicken the way I do, but do not see why I shoud be forced - by a removal of a feature - to change the way I use Quicken. Also, no one has explained (including Intuit) why this feature change was not documented; I could have saved myself a lot of concern (including removing & reinstalling Quicken twice) if at someone had thought to mention recurring transactions had changed.

If you look at how this change in scheduled transaction works, it would be easy to modify. Ignoring for the moment the code for the last several versions of Quicken, 2005 allows for scheduling future transactions for any other type of transaction. This means the code already exists to change the way this feature works (eg, add another transaction type for printing checks).

I am not certain how scheduled transactions would be considered irrelevant, although there is clearly a difference of opinion on how the feature is implemented. Isn't one of Quicken's main uses to provide an easy method for remembering the bills we have due? I've taught Quicken (and QuickBooks) classes and scheduled transactions are always a main interest of users of these applications. Also, as you point out, spending the past several years in training has allowed me to see how others use technology differently than I do. Consequently, although I don't necessarily see a need for the change in how Quicken does scheduled transactions, clearly others do and I would not want to have this option removed. And, overall, I like Quicken 2005. I like the new option for recurrence patterens (how many times had this been requested!). I like the way Quicken 'remembers' replacement names for downloaded transactions. I still wish the one-line display worked the way it did in the DOS version (the selected transaction would display both lines of data), but with a 19" monitor I don't mind leaving the register at 2 lines ;).

Mike

The change in scheduled transactions occur only with printed checks and online payments (I do not use this feature), and only when the lead time (how far in advance to enter the transaction) exceeds the recurrence frequency (eg, a monthly check with a lead time of 15 days will not exhibit this change, since you will print the check before the next one is inserted).

If you believe my interest in asking people effected by this change (which does not appear to be you - I still am not quite sure why you have taken such a deep seated interest in it) to write to Intuit, then perhaps you can explain why Intuit suggested this (specifically, if they heard from other users they would reconsider modifying how this feature works).

As for your friends calling you stupid - I don't know your friends any more than I know you. My friends have called me many things - a bad dancer, a klutz, a funny dresser (hey, I'm a geek!), etc. - but not stupid. Sorry to disappoint. I am glad that you're able to gleen so much about me from a few paragraphs of text on a computer screen. I imagine we might actually get along if we met in person.

Can we shake on this and agree to disagree?

Mike

IMHO you still have not adequately described what the problem is. As such I cannot address it.

Again, not knowing what exactly your problem is I don't see it as fewer options. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here - I'm just saying that you have not defined it well enough. And, from the looks of it, most people don't use nor care about it, thus negating your "essential" qualification of this feature.

Oh but your surely did tell people to start a write in campaign.

You are hardly forced to. You don't like the way the product works then don't use it. See - that was simple.

Not all feature changes are documented.

Did the last Quicken describe these recurring transactions and their behavior as you see it? Did the current Quicken describe them the same way?

Who said that scheduled transactions are irrelevant?!? I use scheduled transactions all the time. They work for me. I'm still struggling to see how they fail to work for you....

That is a useful thing and indeed Quicken does remind me of when bills are due...

Good, well this describes more. So, then, what exactly happens if I say schedule an online payment (I don't use printed checks) with a lead time of 60 days to occur every 30 days?

Intuit, or rather their tech reps, very often say things that make no sense at all. My interest in this peeked precisely because it appears as if you got your feathers all in a ruff for some obscure behavior that quite possibly was never documented to work in any particular way changed and as such you appeared to huff into here demanding that everybody "writes their congressmen" if I could use that as a description. You seemed, quite frankly, off kilter.

Now you may very well have run into some bug or obscure change in a often unused feature that is very near and dear to your heart and that's fine - complain all you want. But please give a good description of what the problem is, how it manifests itself and why you think it's a bug. Even so, you may just be on the wrong side of the popularity wheel and never see any satisfaction WRT to this problem. If so then return the product and find another one more suited to what you're trying to accomplish.

Again, I find that extremely difficult to believe. Calling others stupid is just about what every kid going to school has done to everybody else at one time or another.

I'm amazing - aren't I? :-)

Yeah we probably would. People on screen are usually much different than in person. It's hard to adequately type about and describe things in prose - I think more than anything else because people do not take the time to type out what they mean and/or to read it. Still I'm constantly amazed at how otherwise nice and intelligent people have no idea about what a computer application is doing and describe things in the weirdest ways, inventing their own terminology and leaving out essential facts when describing a problem they are experiencing. It's amazing. That's why whenever somebody tells me "I tried that and it didn't work" I usually respond with "What was your first indication that it failed"! :-)

Oh, hey I have no problems with this whatsoever. You have the problem and it works fine for me. I was just trying to get you to describe the problem fully so that 1) somebody might be able to tell you of a work around and/or 2) others can chime in in agreement with your findings. I still have no idea what the heck the problem is though your first paragraph seems to indicate some conditions that need to be in place for the problem to appear.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I understand your desire to use the feature. I did not say that Intuit was right to remove the feature or that they have a "point" in removing it. I merely noted that I use scheduled transactions without the problem you mention and that it is possible that relatively few people are affected by it (the change or removal of the feature you use). Further, it is also possible that Intuit considers your "feature" to be a "bug" and "fixed" it.

I suspect many changes are too mundane to document for the end users. I doubt many users read such documentation anyway. You might be an exception, though.

Yes, but everything must be tested and verified and that is a pain. Not just a feature by itself, but with all combinations of other applicable features. Intuit would clearly be interested in minimizing this validation cost, much more than you or I would as customers.

irrelevant,

I don't think they (scheduled transactions) are irrelevant; I use them all the time. However, some details of schedule transactions might be irreleveant.

I guess I look at Quicken differently. It does what it does. If I can make use of it, great. If not, it is my problem (well maybe Intuit's also if they lose a customer and I am representative of other customers).

I have been providing a great deal of feedback to Intuit on bugs I find or areas where I see that improvement can be made. I don't really expect them to do anything with it. But if they are listening and improve a couple of those items, so much the better.

Peter