[Nobody]

Macworld did do a review of the various personal finance applications for the Mac. They reviewed Quicken, Moneydance and a few others. The review, not surprisingly, came out in favor of Quicken. The short version of the review is that the reviewer was not as familiar with the other products as he was with Quicken. For this reason he gave Quicken a thumbs up and panned all the other apps. In other words he never game the other apps a chance.
Look up the article in the archive and see for yourself. http://www.macworld....tware/index.php

[Nobody]

Moneydance can direct connect to your financial institution. You will have to go into each register, click the download transactions menu item and enter your password. Maybe not as slick as Quicken but a small price to pay to not have to use Quicken anymore. One other thing that may have changed since you last tried Moneydance is that it can now direct connect to brokerages in addition to banks. So now I can download transactions from Ameriprise and Fidelity all form within Moneydance.

[hayesk]

Complaining about UB is petty and irrational. If you didn't know if an app was UB or not, you really wouldn't notice for an app like this.
But the real reason that I have never used Quicken (even though it came free on one of my Macs) is that Intuit continually insults Mac users by giving them cut rate software, hard sell them on switching to Windows, and then have the gall to cite poor Mac sales as the reason for dropping Mac products. Gee Intuit, if you actually made good Mac software, don't you think your sales would pick up? Here's what Intuit should have done a long time ago:
- feature parity with the Windows version
- update the UI with the OS
but most importantly:
- use the same protocols for online banking for both platforms. If Intuit designed the Internet, there'd be Mac http and Windows http. And Mac http would only support plain text.
- use the same file format for the Mac and Windows versions. I mean really, what software architect at Intuit thought it would be a good idea to have different file formats between the two platforms? bits are bits and bytes are bytes. Microsoft can do it, Adobe can do it, Macromedia did it. Why can't Intuit?
I don't understand how their CEO got on Apple's board of directors in the first place.

[NeoX]

My bad on the quote, but still you made a point that an increase in App footprint size could be an issue and not worth the benefits. One question: Have you used Quicken 2007 on an intel Mac? I have been using it for longer then most and when I switched from my G5 to this Macbook I saw a noticeable decrease in performance in ALL aspects of the app.

Quote:

---

for mainstream apps Rosetta on the slowest Intel Mac made is faster than most, if not all, G4 systems.

---

Do you have any real world tests to back this up? This has certainly not been my experience. As I stated it runs snappier on my older 1.25Ghz PowerBook.

I just cannot see a core solo Mac Mini besting a 1.25 ghz G4 in rosetta. Actually it doesent it is slower, and here is just one link:
http://www.macworld....marks/index.php
Perhaps you should read that article before posting /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
NeoX

[NeoX]

Quote:

---

Complaining about UB is petty and irrational. If you didn't know if an app was UB or not, you really wouldn't notice for an app like this.

---

Really? By your own admission you have not used quicken so how would you know if you could tell the difference? The simple fact is that you can tell a difference from everything to window contents redraw speed to accessing different parts of the app that pause for a few seconds before opening.
I use several apps all throughout the day that are not universal and believe me on my intel mac it feels like a downgrade with those apps. I knew this going into the purchase and it is by no means unusable, but it is noticeably slower.
So I don't think that complaining about new software being released non-native is irrational at all. What is irrational is all the users saying you wont notice a difference and other remarks when they have never even used it on an intel mac or even own one...

[bayoubengal]

Any mac developer who hasn't already ported to macintel and who isn't currently porting his products to macintel is suicidal.
In this business, you have keep up with where Apple is going or you fall so far behind you eventually pay a big price to catch up.
frankly, I have a 150 GB HD and I don't care that the Quark 7 executable is 113 MB instead of 60 MB. My entire application folder is 6 GB (only a fraction of that is executable size). in comparison, my itunes music folder is 9.1GB.

[kongjie]

I wonder if any users of Moneydance can respond to this (perhaps outdated) Macworld quote on its lack of logic? I'm considering dropping Quicken but don't want to regret the move...

Quote:

---

Moneydance categorizes your transactions in an unusual and confusing way. Unlike Quicken, which treats categories and accounts as separate entities, Moneydance treats every category as an account, so if you want to get detailed information on where you're spending your money, you need to create accounts for gas, groceries, entertainment, and the like. The strange thing about this is that after you've made a few payments, the account displays a positive balance. When it comes to expenses, this is downright absurd; it's the kind of accounting logic that personal accounting programs should avoid or, at the very least, hide from those of us who tremble at the thought of balancing a checkbook.

---

[Eric Suesz]

FYI: The review of iBank is going live today.

[Philip Michaels]

Quote:

---

FYI: The review of iBank is going live today.

---

And so it has, my man.

[bastion]

My bad on the quote, but still you made a point that an increase in App footprint size could be an issue and not worth the benefits. One question: Have you used Quicken 2007 on an intel Mac?
2007? No.

Quote:

---

for mainstream apps Rosetta on the slowest Intel Mac made is faster than most, if not all, G4 systems.

---

Do you have any real world tests to back this up? This has certainly not been my experience. As I stated it runs snappier on my older 1.25Ghz PowerBook.

I just cannot see a core solo Mac Mini besting a 1.25 ghz G4 in rosetta.
I have, and use daily, a Core Solo mini and a 2x1GHz MDD in addition to my 2x1.8 G5 and my G3/600 iBook. The x86 mini replaced a 1.25GHz PPC mini, and it replaced it well despite almost none of the software I ran on it being universal at the time I made the replacement.

Actually it doesent it is slower, and here is just one link:
...
Perhaps you should read that article before posting /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Um. Perhaps you should. It doesn't really support your objection.

[NeoX]

Quote:

---

Um. Perhaps you should. It doesn't really support your objection.

---

Oh really? Look at the benchmarks for yourself. Here it is quoted:
MacMini Core Solo Photoshop: 4:23
Mac Mini 1.25Ghz G4: 2:01
Hmm that looks like a pretty big margin. So how does this not support my objection and totally disprove yours that even the lowest intel Mac is faster in rosetta then most if not all G4s?
You mentioned a lot of systems and if you have come to the conclusion that rosetta apps are faster on an intel mac then they are on the native G4's you mentioned, you obviously don't spend a lot of time actually using apps like Office on an intel mac. If you did you would notice the difference in speed.

[bastion]

Any mac developer who hasn't already ported to macintel and who isn't currently porting his products to macintel is suicidal.
Or pragmatic. Suicidal would be the developer who asserts an intent to never make such a migration, but that's not what's happened here.

In this business, you have keep up with where Apple is going or you fall so far behind you eventually pay a big price to catch up.
You can pay an even bigger price by extending an in-progress development cycle for months to implement and test a change that represents a miniscule liability for 90% of your customers and an arguable benefit for the other 10%.
frankly, I have a 150 GB HD and I don't care that the Quark 7 executable is 113 MB instead of 60 MB.
Cool. Now what about those pesky iBook users with 10-20GB drives?
Things to think about:
As I noted earlier, it's not likely that anyone in this thread really knows the actual current or short-term projected breakdown of Mac Quicken users. Yet that's absolutely the most important number any developer should be paying attention to when deciding how to prioritize development tasks. Deciding that your market consists of "people who are buying new machines today" is rarely correct. If anyone really wants to press that point, the end result is that Quicken 2007 for the Mac should be Intel-only and get even less development attention than it does.
We don't know how far along Quicken 2007 was in its development cycle when it became apparent that the Intel Macs were going to be deployed on a schedule much accelerated from what Apple originally projected. We do know that the actual release schedule caught a lot of developers off-guard - remember the original schedule was an 18-month span starting roughly mid-2006, not 8 months starting in January.
We don't know, but I consider it likely that the Q2007 spec was frozen before the MBP was introduced. No sane developer will unfreeze a spec without a really compelling reason, and running emulated but correctly for a minority of users isn't.

[NeoX]

Quote:

---

We don't know, but I consider it likely that the Q2007 spec was frozen before the MBP was introduced. No sane developer will unfreeze a spec without a really compelling reason, and running emulated but correctly for a minority of users isn't.

---

No, but remember that developers have had access to tools and systems long before the introduction of the MBP. Remember the developer transition program that included an intel Mac development box? When was that? 2005 developer conference, I think.
While I agree with some of your points that it would not necessarily make sense to port over to Xcode an app that has little market share on the mac by intel users, nevertheless if they did they may adopt more users...

[bastion]

Hmm that looks like a pretty big margin. So how does this not support my objection and totally disprove yours that even the lowest intel Mac is faster in rosetta then most if not all G4s?
You left out a critical word in restating my claim: mainstream. PhotoShop isn't.
you obviously don't spend a lot of time actually using apps like Office on an intel mac.
What's "obvious" isn't always right. I've been using Word and Excel regularly since 1989. I'm a major release behind right now, though, so I'll grant that maybe there's something in the current version that's particularly troublesome for Rosetta.