[visiondancer]

Since Quicken for Mac has been such a dissapointment for many, why not review some of the other applications from active smaller-developers. Sure they may not have all the features of Quicken yet, but I am curious to know how applications like iBank and Liquid Ledger (just two that I know of) stack up against the aged beast that is Quicken for Mac.
A side-by-side review and comparison of these applications should spurn all the developers involved into creating better products, and help readers pick from a couple of choices. It is inportant to recognize the efforts of the small developers who are putting out high-quality products. Especially in areas where larger developers have all but given up.

[NeoX]

Quote:

---

Why? That's a serious question. The code in a UB is roughly double the size of that in a single-platform binary, and Quicken's code:resource ratio is relatively high.

---

Why? Because it is noticeably snappier on my older PowerBook and G5 then it is on my spanking new MackBook 2ghz with 2GB RAM. Because it is not native it takes much longer to open, the first time, and it takes longer to go from task to task then it does on my G4/G5.
Also, not all UB's are double the size as non native apps. Only the binary, and any custom frameworks/libraries, are added the rest are usually the same. Graphics, sounds and other resources are usually the same.
Personally, given todays HD space, I would gladly take a 10 MB, or more, bloat in the app size for universal and the speed it would restore...

[msh1908]

I could not agree more. I had the same problems with 2007 as 2006. I've been using Quicken since 1994, the last two versions of Quicken are worthless. After purchasing the download version, when I asked for a refund, they said they could not make refunds within 48 hours of the purchase and that I should call back after 48 hours.

[bastion]

to the guy complaining about UB support increasing file sizes....
Since I was the only one who mentioned UB file sizes up 'til this post, I assume that was aimed at me. But I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out the true fact that making Quicken into a UB would add roughly 50% to the app footprint. Yes, there is lipo and my own GUI fat-trimmer for those who care about the disk space, but you have to be aware of the issue and realize that there's a solution first, and frankly many users don't.
I can assure you that executable file size isn't an issue in the debate.
I didn't say it was. I asked where the benefit to users was that would justify the expenditure of resources to build and test a universal version. As you and others have pointed out, there are things a lot more significant about the current state of Quicken to be addressed.

[bastion]

Are you serious?
Yes. That would be why I said I was serious in the part of the post you snipped.
While I might agree that Quicken isn't as CPU bound as something like Photoshop, it still can be sluggish on a dual G4 system when saving files (large transactions registers).
Saving Quicken data files is disk-bound. Even if that wasn't the case, for mainstream apps Rosetta on the slowest Intel Mac made is faster than most, if not all, G4 systems.
Besides all of that, just out of principle, all new applications should be Universal binaries by now.
So the asnwer to "why" is "because?" I don't buy it. Generating a UB of any app more complex than Apple's currency converter Cocoa demo is not free. The question stands: Where's the real benefit to Intuit and their users to justify the expense of a UB build at this time?
Apple's entire platform is now on Intel
True, but irrelevant. What portion of Intuit's Mac market is Intel-based? That's the number Intuit has to be looking at when deciding on a strategy.
Doesn't this seem wrong to you?
Nope. That would be why I asked the question.
Intuit should not be ignoring the Intel based Mac community.
They're not ignoring them. They're consiously declining to spend the resources on a UB version at this time for the stated and very credible reason that there's no tangible reason to do so.

[bastion]

Also, not all UB's are double the size as non native apps.
Virtually none are, but that's not what I said. I said the code was roughly double the size and that Quicken's code was a larger-than-average portion of the app's footprint compared to the resources. Please read before correcting errors that weren't made.

[kms007]

I am still holding at Quicken 2002 and will continue to do so unless I can find a better alternate that I can use. Based on the reports from users I have read on here, I am definitely not interested in moving to Quicken 2007. How can MacWorld give this program 4 stars?
-Krishna

[finchna]

Quote:

---

Why?

---

Because Apple is only selling intel macs--granted the MP hadn't been introduced when QT2007 was launched, but everything else was intel and the MP was on the way. The point of UB is to support both PPC and Intel natively. They could have done that as a way of looking ahead. Not doing so reeks of wanting to get people to buy a new version next year even when the feature improvements don't warrant upgrading Quicken Mac but every 4 years or more. If features were truly added/improved that made a difference or if the feature set reached Windows parity (and why isn't it?) and it became stable, then a review and critique of the software would be a different story. Until then, it seems like Quicken is trying to make a buck in return for very little.
And why another story less than a month after the first one--does MW have some interest in Quicken?

[invalidname]

I would really like to see MacWorld do a serious review of iBank http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/, a Cocoa-based Quicken competitor. Maybe Moneydance too.
We've been on Quicken since 1994; currently using Quicken 2002 because it was the first to be fully Carbonized. Haven't upgraded since then because Quicken's policy is pretty much to give Mac users the finger every year... that's why I'd be open to migrating to iBank if it's really solid and won't hose my data.
For my business, I use MYOB FirstEdge, since QuickBooks for Mac hadn't been revived when I started my home business. I looked at MyBooks, but it was clearly a joke. MYOB's support is an appalling money-grab, but the app works fine.

[charlieartist]

Pretty much the same reason why I went with MYOB when the freelance work picked up. At the time, I was transitioning to OS X, and Quicken had stated that there would be no plan at the time to move QuickBooks to OS X. MYOB was OS X already, and I decided to go with them for that reason. Sure, Quicken had been fine for personal, but I had my doubts about their support for Mac products due those statements.
P.S.-- Regarding UB--isn't it the case that if application developers had been keeping up to date, the transition to Intel really isn't as difficult as some make it to be?

[bastion]

Because Apple is only selling intel macs
Which should not be an overriding factor for a software developer updating a product with an established base.
The point of UB is to support both PPC and Intel natively.
Yes. Being a developer I know what the point of a UB is. The question, from my first post, is: What real justification is there for putting the resources into a UB effort for this product? So far the responses have included a lot of dogma and one anecdotal report of ancillary performance issues under Rosetta.
Not doing so reeks of wanting to get people to buy a new version next year ...
That should be a tough sell considering their stated reason for not doing 2007 as a UB is that it doesn't provide a significant performance benefit. (Not saying it will be a tough sell. Just that it should be.)

[Nobody]

If you want an alternative to Quicken that can download transactions form your bank then look at Moneydance. www.moneydance.com. It can connect to all the banks that the Windows version of Quicken can connect to. That means it can connect to hundreds more banks than Quicken for the Mac can. And Moneydance won't disable transaction downloading like Quicken did with Q2003.
I switched from Quicken to Moneydance about 3 years ago. I was able to export my Quicken data file and import it in Moneydance. Good bye Quicken and all your bugs. I will never look back. Moneydance all the way!!!

[satan]

Quote:

---

As for the complaints about lack of feature growth from prior version, well what more do you want or need?

---

Quicken 98 Mac had a feature called Billminder, which gave you a Finder alert about due or overdue bills. Every OSX version has lacked this, meaning you have to launch Quicken to find out what's due.
The Windows version still has Billminder. It's not so much a complaint about lack of "feature growth" as it is about feature parity and actually removing features that used to be there.

[Argelius]

The last time I investigated MoneyDance I thought it couldn't do the "direct connect" thing that Quicken can.
With Quicken I can click on "One Step Update" and automatically get all my financial transactions downloaded and entered into the various accounts. Can MoneyDance do that (or if not all, at least one institution at a time)? I seem to remember it being a much more cumbersome process of having to indivually login to each institution's website.
I hope I'm wrong, cuz I really don't like Quicken for Mac either (I'm using 2006 -- certainly see no reason to upgrade to 2007).