Quicken 2005 - feature removed for no reason


Quicken 2005 removed a feature that's been an essential part of Quicken for
over 15 years (I've used Quicken since 1987) - scheduled transactions. Yes,
if you look on the menu it's still listed there, but it no longer works, at
least not as expected.
Example: enter a scheduled transaction for a check to be automatically
entered 3 months in advance. Normally, when you exit and re-enter Quicken
you would have three months of transactions. In 2005, it only enters one
transaction, and locks that transaction down (you cannot edit or delete it
from the scheduled transaction list, though you can from the register).
This behavior is only seen on checks and online payments - other transaction
will be entered as expected. According to Intuit, customers (not sure how
many) requested this feature - though I could not get an explanation as to
what problem it solved. Assumedly, someone did not like having multiple
transactions in the register. Okay...that's fine....but why not just make
the lead time for that transaction 7 days? Or 29 days? Instead, Quicken
has broken a feature that represents 90% of the reason I use it. I've heard
the suggestion to use the forecasting feature, but that's just a report; by
using the register the way I do I have a 3 month preview of my finances and
can quickly spot problems before they occur, and make adjustments when
needed. And it's not a guess like the forecasting feature.
Since Quicken 2005 is looking for a flag (eg, is it a "print" type or an
"online payment" type), there needs to be a way to tell it to ignore this
flag (like it does for every other type of transaction). Yet I was told
that a developer couldn't spend 20 hours to correct this problem; if it
takes a developer 20 hours to edit a few lines of code - that already
exist - then Intuit is in more trouble than I thought.
If you wish to contact Intuit about this:
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
I will be making a stink about this until they fix it....
Mike
Reply to
Mike
I KNEW there had to be a reason that I shouldn't upgrade to 2005! This would really screw me up too. I'm still having a tough time working around the scheduled transaction functions that they broke on my platform (Mac) between Q98 and Q2004.
It never fails to amaze me at the ignorant, and frequently politically motivate "reasons" that can exist for these so called "improvements" that this company seems to shovel out on a regular basis, and the number of useful features that are broken due to "improvements" made. Especially all of these "silent fixes".
If their marketing department REALLY wanted to know the viability of a new feature, all they would need to do is post an announcement and request for feedback someplace like this forum. There is SO MUCH quality information here from real, devoted users, that the pluses and minuses would become quite evident in short order. The problem is that someone at Intuit would have to go through a lot of data to determine the true impact of what they are trying to do.
Instead, this "feature" was probably suggested by the Marketing manager's wife or something, and someone else said, "why not?", and so off they went and it was done. What a shame.
All transactions are discreet events and must be both implemented and visible as such. This has always been an inherent structure in these types of applications. To try and group any transactions for some perceived convenience in viewing by removing actual events from the view may be desirable in some application but it is still an exception to the rule and should NEVER be implemented in a way that it replaces the rule. It should only exist as an enhancement or add-on. Throwing away or masking a foundation concept (such as discreet transaction tracking) is never a bright idea.
- Jeff
Reply to
Jeff Wiseman
If I understand your predicament correctly, I guess as a workaround instead of setting your scheduled transactions to "Automatically Enter", you could set them to "Remind Me". Then the word "(Auto)" in the "Action" column of the Scheduled Transaction List becomes an "Enter" button. Then just click this "Enter" buttom 3 times if you want 3 months of monthly transactions or whenever you want more entered in the register.
I have switched most of my "Automatically Enter" transactions to "Remind Me" because of this since most of my scheduled transactions change in the date and amount each month and I want to be able to click "Enter" when I know (get the bill) the date and amount. The only few I leave on "Automatically Enter" are transactions that are the same amount each month and/or on the same date and I get no warning/bill before they occur. But these are very few (only 3 out of my 25 scheduled transactions).
Not exactly what you want but maybe a workaround?? I too enter some transactions ahead of time and like to use the register (at least my checking account register) for seeing future cash flow. But I only use it for about 3 weeks ahead so I guess I don't mind it the way it is as much as you do. But I do wish they would change the "(Auto)" to an "Enter" button for all scheduled transactions whether they are to be automatically entered or manually confirmed since sometimes/often even with automatically entered transactions we want to manually enter them ahead of time. I used to have most of my transactions set to "Automatically Enter" until I kept wanting to click "Enter" and it wasn't there. So I switched them to "Remind Me".
-- Steve
Reply to
Steve Johnson
It works for me. I have no idea why it does for me and not for you. It may depend on the account type or transaction type.
Doug
Reply to
Doug Ellice
Steve,
I tried that - it does not work; that was one of the first things I tried. You will not get reminded to enter the next check until the current one is printed.
The only workarounds I have found so far are to change "printed check" to payment or to put the transaction into a group. The group functionality also does not work quite right, though it can work; this is a known bug.
Reply to
Mike

Site Timeline Threads

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.