I just went from 2006 to 2007. It was half the price of 2008 at Amazon. It will let me continue downloading until 2009 comes out. That will give them time to fix 2008, and the price will be cut in half again. One year behind on releases seems to work well for me.
Since changing versions two weeks ago, I've noticed the following...
- Graphs and charts are now bright colors. That was easy to do, but added no value.
- Screen arrangements that used to work, don't work any longer. My home screen arrangement used to have stock quotes on the left, and net worth along with scheduled payments on the right. That will not work unless I now expand the window further. If I do that, the brokerage summary screens won't work properly. It moves other fields up, and hides most of the data.
- The account bar on the left now has some extra buttons that take up just enough screen real estate that my accounts no longer fit. It isn't a big deal, but I liked it better before.
- Downloads now appear to be multi-threaded. Stock quotes are still not reliable, and news is no longer displayed. One step forward, two steps back. That wasn't part of the release change, but is a reflection of the services that they deliver.
- Backup to CD stopped working again. It worked fine in 2004, but then stopped working after one of their updates. It worked fine again in
2006. It doesn't work in 2007. I've added Karen's Replicator to perform my backups.
- They still can't handle US Savings Bonds. I continue to use SB Wizard to track my bonds, and just dummy up an account in Quicken to reflect the value.
- The tax planner doesn't provide an accurate assessment of taxes for me. It includes tax payments that it shouldn't, and there is no easy way to eliminate them. I made some very large payments least April, and it shows them as 2007 taxes paid. There are work arounds, but basically, it is not flexible enough.
There are plenty of areas where Intuit could focus their attention. That said, for the price, it is an indispensable tool for me, and overall, the quality is above what I see in other complex software. Considering the price, IMHO it is a very good value.
You're something Steve: you're not just a jerk; you're an asshole zenophobic jerk.
Your pretended "analysis" of Quicken is totally worthless ... whatever problems Quicken (or any other product) is having, has NOTHING to do with the nationality of the programmers who write the code ... NOTHING.
My experience tells me you haven't a clue what you're talking about I guarentee you I have at least as much experience in the "business" as you do. And I have plenty of experience with, and knowledge of, programmers from "other" countries.
My experience also tells me that decent people NEVER say the things you say,
If you don't like those "evil foreigners", you have a personal problem.
Keep your personal problems to yourself.
-- John Pollard First initial underscore Last name at mchsi dot com Please reply to newsgroup
I upgraded to a Mac earlier this year, and Quicken for Mac is the most horrific thing I've ever seen. Frankly, it doesn't even work, and is missing features that were implemented in Quicken 6.0. Not Quicken '06, SIX POINT OH, AKA "Quicken '96". :)
So I'm running Quicken '07 in a Windows VM, and while it works, it would be nice to not have to fire up a VM every time I want to access Quicken. I'm dying for the web version, of which I haven't heard anything in months. I've beta tested past Quickens, and am bummed I wasn't invited for the web beta test. I'm sure it's better than the godawful Mac version, and that's all that matters.
Quicken '07 is now nagging me to upgrade to '08, and while in previous years I was a "zero day adopter" I didn't do it this year because of the anticipated web version. Now it sounds as if my not upgrading was for the best, it's too bad they dropped the ball. Still, you guys want to see some crappy money management software, the Mac native stuff is uniformly awful. If you have very, very simple financial needs they might work, but nothing is nearly as powerful as Quicken (for Windows).
I wouldn't call going to a Mac "upgrading". You simply succumbed to the snob appeal of paying MORE money for a snob product. Now you whine because YOU have problems as a DIRECT result of YOUR action.
No need to get pissy, John, I'm just sharing my experiences. Your inflammatory reaction to my depiction of life experience is WAY out of line. Given the value you've added to this newsgroup, I'll grant that maybe you are just having a bad day. I hope so, because you've really misinterpreted my post, big-time.
One more point, I didn't impune your experience, so I don't need to engage in a urinating for distance contest. I'm sure you have an extensive background. Where you are incorrect is assuming your background precludes my experience in the circumstance I described. Indians are some of the nicest, most humble people on this planet. I couldn't care less WHICH nationality they were, I just have less tolerance for companies seeking a free lunch by outsourcing to cheap 3rd world markets just to earn a huge executive bonus this quarter. Bigger picture stuff here, but allowing corporations to turn their collective backs on the American workforce will have devastating impacts on the US economy in the long term. If we had the same trade laws as China and India, I'd be happy. I'm just not happy that we're getting the short end of the deal...we're getting screwed senseless.
I thought your original comments were way out of line ... and they didn't belong in this group. This post too should not have been sent, but I'll address it anyway.
I'm sure they'll apreciate you damning them with such faint praise. I'm also sure they're much more skilled than you've given them credit for.
The only one seeking a free lunch here is you ... looking for subsidies for the "American workforce" ... including yourself.
This is just plain hogwash, and practially the opposite of the truth (once you remove the rhetoric like "turning their collective backs on the American workforce").
I believe you're having a personal reaction to this process that you're attempting to translate into a national problem, but whatever the reason is, you are misinformed. [The effect of some programming work moving overseas has undoubtedly negatively affected me as much as anyone else ... but that does not cause me to seek sympathy, nor the interference of the government in the marketplace to gurantee me a job.]
We have nothing to fear from the global economy and the comptetition it brings ... any more than workers in one state in the union have to fear from companies/workers in other states.
No one has the right to a job. No one has the right to a particular salary. The marketplace is global, and it's going to stay global. If individuals and companies can't compete on a global level, they're going out of business. And that is a good thing, not a bad thing. One of the "functions" of the market is to weed out those that can't compete. There is a job for virtually everyone, but it's not necessarily the one they thought, or wish, it was ... and it may change over time. The market impartially acts to send the signals needed to push people and companies to provide the goods and services most desired by consumers.
Competition is good. Humans (acting as consumers) consistantly and relentlessly seek lower prices. No country can "protect" its citizens from competition - no matter where that competition is located - without jacking up prices and lowering quality. If companies didn't seek the best employees for the least pay (just as employees seek the best job for the most pay), customers and shareholders would pay the price. And that just shouldn't happen.
The operation of the marketplace is difficult to grasp and impossible to control. Many humans can't stand the fact that a system without any humans in control can actually perform much better than a system with humans in charge ... it's a case of ignorance (mostly of economics, but also ethics) combined with hubris ... a deadly combination.
When governments restrict the ability of companies to hire the employees they desire (so the polititicians can bribe some workers to vote for them and NOT be seen as "turning their backs on the American workforce"), they are forcing American consumers and American shareholders to subsidize the "workers" who are being protected. This is not a good thing. ["Workers" not only "work": they consume and they invest ... how bizarre that some of them think they can help themselves by increasing the prices they pay for things and lowering the returns on their investments.]
If you want to subsidize the "American workforce", then you pay for it. And if you want to lobby to have the American people subsidize the "American workforce", have the honesty to call it what it is you seek: forced charity. Make the government setup a special tax on all Americans (so everyone will know what it costs), and use the proceeds to send charity checks to affected workers.
Americans should never have believed that they were guaranteed their jobs or their pay. As soon as they figure out that the world is going to move on, with or without them, they will start adopting policies (personal policies) that place a high value on adaptation ... either increasing their skill level to stay up with the competition, or broadening their skillset to allow switching to new jobs when other factors make that the best choice. The day when everyone could expect to have the same job for life are over; but people are still being trained (vocationally and emotionally) as if it were true.
Geopolitical boundaries are largely arbitrary; and totally arbitrary when it comes to human abilities. It is senseless to blame your problems on other countries ... or other states, or other counties, or other cities ... or other people. There's no workable way to draw a line where competition occurs on one side of the line but not the other.
If we discover intelligent life on other planets one day ... we'll have to compete with them too.
OK, let's sum this up. Clearly this is an ideological debate, to which there will be no outcome or "winning" position. You fall on the side of Thomas Friedman, Milton Friedman, and Alan Greenspan globalization theory, I fall in the camp that believes wanton globalization it is destroying America. Funny, isn't it, that China and India have much more restrictive trade laws than the US, isn't it? Yet, they are the ones with the windfall global trade surplusses, and the US is in increasing deficit as the US dollar disappears. I will never fall on the side of Reagan's bogus trickle-down economics theory, I will always oppose welfare tax breaks to big oil, I will always oppose unrestricted and unregulated free trade, I oppose NAFTA, I oppose open highways to Mexican trucking. I flatly reject your views, you likely reject mine. We will never come to any understanding of each other's views, or any compromise in our beliefs. You are entitled to your perspective, as I am to mine. I would encourage you to not lash out with personal attacks with people you disagree with, you won't find as many supporters for your position. People are finally catching on that conservatives usually just spew hatred and personal attacks as a way of leveraging or closing the argument. I choose a different approach. You thought my original comments were way out of line, yet I guarantee you many others have shared the same experiences. As far as whether a post should or shouldn't have been sent, I firmly believe in the US Constitution and the freedoms it guarantees, so I will unashamedly send any post I choose to send, whether a single individual objects to it or not. That is the "small-D" democracy and lack of societal control of individual freedoms that conservatives fear so much.
"John Pollard" wrote in message news:fkgp08$n1k$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org...
You don't want to subsidize the "American workforce". Will you stand up in protest of subsidizing the "American corporation" with tax breaks then? If, as conservatives argue, a corporation has the rights of a person, then shouldn't we stop giving welfare to corporation-persons as well? If this kind of corporate welfare is accepted, and corporations have been granted the legal protections of personhood by the Republicans, then we should afford the same welfare handouts to American citizens. Why is it better to guarantee executive bonuses than to ensure good paying American jobs. Once we stop 100% of all tax breaks and welfare to American corporations, then I'll go along with your whack-a-doodle view of unrestricted globalization. At that point, it will be an even playing field.
I have no interest in censoring anyone (and I have no idea how or why you think the constitution has anything to do with what's being discussed). In fact I want folks to publish their opinions so I can know where they stand. I just think your whiney self-serving, unethical ideas belong in a different group: they don't descibe anything useful about Quicken's or Intuit's problems. Expecting you to control yourself is expecting you to be courteous, not trying to censor you; apparently you also suffer from paranoia.
You have nothing useful to tell me about freedoms, just as you have nothing useful to tell me about programming and who should be allowed to do it.
I'm also not a conservative, and I don't fear you at all. I just intend to counter your rubish whenever I see it.
Why would you assume there is some dichotomy between not wanting special favors for the "American workforce" and not wanting special favors for American Corporations? The two positions are not in disagreement with one another.
I clearly said I favor the marketplace ... that means no government favors ... for anyone.
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.