Yesterday when I did the 1 step update, I somehow ended w/$40,000 cash in 1 investment acc't -- nice if true -- but? This acc't did have a sell & buy transactions to download. I finally found the transactions that created the cash, 2 $20,000, dated Nov 1998 & named by qkn "remove." I restored the backup & those transactions were definitely not converted from '06. Tried again w/the same result. Uninstalled 07, reinstalled 06, downloaded & that error did not occur. I have reinstalled 07 & downloaded this am with no errors only renaming rule problems, but that's for another day.
Why would the dl work w/o those 2 erroneous transactions with q 2006p if it came from the fi? After the dl to 06, I did go to Online Center>Holdings & checked if portfolio agreed with the fi & it did.
Also, I am diligent before upgrading to qkn software. I backup file set in use, copy that file set & then validate. I check acc't balances to be certain they are the same before I install software.
BTW, if these 2 $20,000 entries were downloaded by the fi, they happened surreptitiously as the were not in the downloaded transaction window where I would have had a chance to accept or delete them.
The answer to the ? --NO I did not save the downloaded file, I believe the answer that this is a bug is indicated by the facts that: 1) it downloaded perfectly w/no extraneous additions to the acc't dated 1998, w/2006p 2) in a later post I added that I was NOT given the option to accept or delete the 2 incorrect additions they were arbitrarily added & 3) the online holdings w/o the 2 erroneous cash additions agree w/the acc't balance.
The original conversion did not include these cash entries & for some peculiar reason the transactions were named "Remove" which should NOT have left a cash balance in the acc't.
I have been an early upgrader for years & only regretted it once when I went from v5 to v6 (in the 90's); the bug in v6 caused duplicate investment transactions (_div, etc) & was not fixed until the next year's software. With this problem, the printer problem mentioned in another post & a renaming problem I think this may be the 2nd time I'll regret the "upgrade."
malicious -- gosh that's the first time I have been accused of being malicious -- I thought software bugs & hackers were malicious. I love name callers!
And once, AGAIN, you don't address the point raised ... which leaves the distinct impression that you just want to cast aspersions at Q and Intuit, instead of addressing any real problem ... thus the "malicious" comment, which I reiterate.
All right, I "think" it's a bug & here is the reason why; after being called malicious I uninstalled 07, yet again, reinstalled 06, restored from 08/08 backup. Downloaded the investment acc'ts (there are 4 associated w/this acc't # & pin) using web connect, saved to desktop where I could examine them. All 4 acc'ts contained accurate info & for the acc't in ? there were 2 transactions -- 1 sell for $10,000 & 1 buy for the same am't dated 08/07. Then did a 1 step update w/2006 & those 2 transactions were downloaded, I accepted them & no extraneous 1998 cash "removals." were added to the acc't. I then went through an identical process w/2007 -- & guess what -- 2 $20,000 "remove" transactions adding $40,000 cash in 1998. If not a bug, certainly aberrant behavior. So to not be malicious I will change the semantics -- actually I thought bug sounded less noxious/malicious than aberrant.
I have yet to attempt John's suggestion in the forum to try a test file as it would take even more time than the routine described. As mentioned there are 4 acc'ts associated with this fi -- all are over 2 years old -- & USAA downloads all transactions for the last 2 years when activating an acc't. At this point I find that process overwhelming. Maybe I'll try it when I have more time & energy -- now off to church to confess my malicious behaviour.
It's not clear to me whether you are saying you examined the contents of the QFX file here?
Did the "identical process" include initiating a new download using Q2007?
What type of Quicken account are we talking about?
What real world transactions occurred on the date(s) of the 2 $20,000 transactions?
Is "remove" the "Action" value? If not, what field is it in, and what is the "Action" value.
Does Q2007 have any new investment account transaction types?
Do you have your Quicken Investment Transactions preferences set to "Show hidden transactions"? If so, do you have any placeholder transactions in the misbehaving account? (They would have "Entry" in the "Action" field).
I never had any disagreement that you were seeing different behavior between Q2006 and Q2007 ... what you see, is what you see. I also agree that there is no good explanation of that differing behavior ... yet.
This would help rule out data corruption being involved.
But you only need to setup the one account that has the problem.
I agree that this will still be a fair amount of work; basically to accommodate the fact that you won't have complete data for the account.
Before trying the New file, you could make a Quicken Copy of your Q2007 file, then Validate that, and see if any errors are found/fixed.
I think you misunderstood; the problem is not with the word bug, but with the mindset that often accompanies an attempt to prove that a problem is a bug.
Your problem certainly could be a bug; and it is always a good thing when bugs can be identified, and the means to reproduce them can be found. If you can conclusively verify that this is a bug, you will be doing yourself a favor.
But rushing to declare a problem to be a bug often results in less attention paid to the gathering of the information necessary to make certain it is a bug, and to be able to reproduce it. And that rush has, too many times, caused a financial institution error, a user error, or an error by non-Quicken software to be seriously considered a Quicken bug. Sending "bug" reports to Intuit for problems that are not Quicken bugs just takes away from Intuit's capacity to fix real bugs, while providing no relief to the people experiencing the problem.
I prefer to think of starting with a problem to solve; at the end of the day, if the process of trying to solve the problem uncovers facts that support a designation of the problem as a bug, so be it. But with all the other possibilities of causes of problems, predispositions can only hinder the discovery of a solution.
Finally; I wonder why so many are in such a hurry to designate a problem, a bug. Of all the possible causes of a problem, a bug should be one of the least desirable causes to find. There is only a small window of time for the fixing of most bugs for a specific Quicken version ... basically just a few months, then the developers will be moving on to the next version of Quicken. User errors, user misunderstanding, third-party software conflicts, even financial institution errors are generally much more desirable as problem causers because they usually can be fixed much more quickly, and they are more likely to be fixed for the version in which they were discovered.
John, Thanks for your response -- but I surrender, give up, whatever. Today, I ran into yet another problem w/07. I have a scheduled transaction for an investment acc't (this is a treasury direct acc't) with a note that pays semi-annual interest -- it's not complicated the interest gets transferred to a savings acc't & this is the 4th year & 8th interest payment for this 5 year note. This a.m. I entered the scheduled transaction & then recorded it; it looked fine, $ am't accurate, transfer into savings accurate -- but when I looked at the balance of the acc't I discovered that 4900+ shares had been added to that T Note. Nowhere did I find how these shares had been added to the note. There was NO transaction showing an addition of shares & the memorized transaction showed an interest transfer of the correct $ am't. I deleted the interest transaction & the shares returned to the correct #. I manually re-entered the interest & the # of shares did not change.
I have had it with the behavior of '07. As mentioned earlier, I am diligent of taking care of qkn file set prior to converting to the new software. I do backup first, then copy, then validate, then check acc't balances between the original & the copy prior to installing & converting the renamed copy. Because of all the craziness with '07, I have also validated this converted data with no errors. I have not super validated as I read in the forum that would cause a problem with attachments & I do have a few of those.
I am persistent, I will continue to work with '07, but I'll keep my primary financial information on another computer with '06. BTW I did spend about 2 hours w/bugs this a.m. -- ants have invaded our kitchen!
Maybe people are just in a hurry to notify other users of a potential problem and/or ask other users if they've seen the same problem and/or ask users if they know the solution to a particular problem. I would think we would want that kind of vitality in a newsgroup. Perhaps the correct protocol would be for the poster, after describing the problem, to ask "is this a bug?" But there ain't no way you're going to get that rule promulgated and adhered to. I think the only preventative for the premature proclamation of a bug is the possibility that the poster who declares the existence of a bug faces the strong possibility of being shamed by members of this group who can prove to the poster that it was his error and not a program flaw that caused the problem. In other words, if you're going to call it a bug, make sure you've eliminated the possibility it's not. If you don't do that, then don't complain if someone shows you it was your mistake and not a program bug. Otherwise just point out that you have a problem and wonder if other folks have an answer to it.
But on the other hand..... I don't think we should get all up in arms if somebody claims they've found a bug. That is, unless you are one of the programmers who work on Quicken. Otherwise, you really don't have any skin in the game. It's not like they called your grandma ugly or anything like that.
Which may be a good reason for posters to draw attention to specific problems as soon as they crop up, whether or not they can prove it is a bug. It seems to me its results we all should be interested in (the result being a better Quicken); how we get to those results isn't as important.
I'm not up in arms. And my purpose wasn't to suggest doing anything to anybody; it was intended to get some people thinking: "Be careful what you wish for". And I intended to note that once a person gets a vested interest in having a problem determined to be a bug, they have an ox that they are afraid can be gored ... often making them less useful in the problem solving process as they feel they must protect their claim.
My point is that the biggest deterrent to premature bug diagnosis should be the unnecessary added difficulty in solving the problem. And I was fairly certain that very few people would actually embrace the thought. One might be nice though.
I would swear I've posted that same notion dozens of times in the past, and my post you're replying to intended no contradiction of that thought.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.