[bastion]

Just like you don't know that they froze code before the MBP was released.
Careful. I didn't say, and don't believe, that the code for Q2007 was frozen before the MBP was announced. But from my own experience on large development efforts, I'd be absolutely floored if the spec wasn't. (Quick research indicates that Quicken 2007 entered beta in early May.)
As I stated earlier, developers have had more then a year to prepare for UB versions and even compile them before intel Macs were released.
Yes, they had opportunity, but I'm still talking about incentive. You've got a finite amount of development resources: You're going to put them toward what you think is going to be compelling to the largest subset of your prospective market.
Remember the timeframes we're talking about. And forget any notion of the spec being frozen since, as you say, we don't know for sure. The timeline for the x86 rollout was originally announced to start "by" (and most people I talked to at the time assumed that meant "shortly before") mid-2006 and take 18 months to complete. And we're talking about a product that was under development to be released early in the second-half of 2006 - right at the beginning of a protracted migration. Surely you can see, given the scheduling involved, that making that product universal might not have been a high priority during the specification process.

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

Who's arguing this point?
It's implicit in the assertions that Quicken 2007, released in August 2006, should be a UB. People may not realize that's part of their argument, but it's inescapable.

---

Huh? You're not following this discussion. Once again, everybody understands that some extra development effort is required to make a UB version of a product. Nobody is arguing this issue. As discussed, this extra effort does forgive companies for not releasing free UB updates of existing releases. It does NOT however forgive companies for not releasing UB versions of the next paid update - especially now that Apple's entire lineup is Intel based. Period.

Quote:

---

I was under the impression that the side advocating change was the one that needed to defend their position. Change being more immediately costly, after all.

---

Change is coming in the form of a new product. This is / was Intuit's opportunity to get on track. They missed it. As for defending positions, it is those deviating from the norm and customer's expectations that need to defend their position. Can you name a significant product release recently that didn't run native on Intel (don't tell me Quark because they've already addressed it)? No, it is Intuit that must answer for it's actions in an environment where every other vendor is getting onboard with the UB releases.

Quote:

---

I wasn't trying to say that we, as users, don't want or need native apps.

---

Okay, thanks for clearing that up because you were challenging the benefit of a UB release.

Quote:

---

I'm pointing out that Intuit, as a developer, didn't perceive a whole lot of incentive to release Quicken 2007 as a UB.

---

Yes, and I actually agreed with your "lack of incentive" issue. Given the method of Intuit's sales to the Mac market, there is little incentive for them to pay any special attention to the Mac market. Apple bundles the app with it's consumer machines and thereby guarantees sales. I doubt very many people update to newer versions of Quicken because of any "must have" features. That's ironic though because I'd imagine many existing Intel based iMac / Macbook users would pay for a UB upgrade. Also, as discussed, the lack of any credibile competition for Intuit in the Mac market also decreases their incentive to do the right thing.
On a side note, for the life of me, I don't understand why Intuit makes banks pay separate for both PC and Mac versions of their service. They should be using a standard protocal. I've personally written many interfaces to various financial instituitions using various methodologies (flat file with secure transfer, EDI, Rosettanet, etc.) Regardless, Quickens protocal should be the same, regardless of the platform. Sorry, I digress...

Quote:

---

Their perception may well have been wrong, but given the information available during the development of this product, their decision not to release the product as a UB is at least as reasonable as the assumption that it "should" be.

---

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this issue. Apparently, every other significant vendor has come to the opposite conclusion. I wonder why that is? Somehow, that seems to take away from the validity of Intuit's conclusion. To me, it seems more like arrogance on Intuit's behalf as they have no real competition and likewise, no real incentive to be competitive in the Mac market. In the Windows market, they have a credible challenger in the form of MS Money.
Steve

[sjh0006]

Am I the only one really PO'd that Quicken STILL does not have the ability to change font size and style? I just "upgraded" from using v2000 and found out AFTER I installed, registered, updated, and imported my files that the type in the register is so small that I can't even read it! I already wear bi-focals!Quicken Tech support says there is no way to increase the size but if I'd like to leave a comment they'll be sure to add it to possible improvements in the future. (Yeah, right) It must be the last program left without that feature. So, I spent $50 on something I can't even see to use!

[coyotl]

The 'Recent Files' menu item, which I used all of the time, has been removed in the latest version? Why? It's astounding to me that Macworld would give a product that disrespects the Mac to this extent 4 mice.

[coyotl]

Quote:

---

That's not to say we won't review other packages, but it explains why Quicken takes precedence.

---

It doesn't explain why it got four mice.

[sandbag1]

Quote:

---

Am I the only one really PO'd that Quicken STILL does not have the ability to change font size and style? I just "upgraded" from using v2000 and found out AFTER I installed, registered, updated, and imported my files that the type in the register is so small that I can't even read it! I already wear bi-focals!Quicken Tech support says there is no way to increase the size but if I'd like to leave a comment they'll be sure to add it to possible improvements in the future. (Yeah, right) It must be the last program left without that feature. So, I spent $50 on something I can't even see to use!

---

I have Quicken 2005 so I cant really give first hand information, but in Quicken 2005 you can change the fonts and font size in the preferences under reports. Has this changed? If so, I will not upgrade either.

[jcr25]

My frustration at Intuit for trotting out another shoddy upgrade of their rickety, old Quicken program has led to frustration at Macworld, which has routinely rated Quicken far more highly than it deserves. I know this thread is dormant, but I was so frustrated at Macworld that I decided to write their editors a lengthy complaint about this repeated over-rating of Quicken; I also decided to register for this message board to share my complaint with any other poor soul who is up late on a Saturday night trying to balance the checkbook with Quicken. Here is my letter to Macworld, for what it is worth:
For the life of me I cannot understand how this product earned four mice from your reviewer. Yes, over the course of Quicken's long product life it has accumulated an "excellent array of financial tools" and now reigns as the "800 pound gorilla" in personal finance software. But all this means is that the product is bloated with features - it doesn't mean that the program itself works intuitively or efficiently. It does neither. A four mouse product should make my life easier; it should not make me long, as Quicken does, for the days of paper bank statements and checkbook registers. A four mouse product should also provide much better customer service than Quicken does; I can only say that after spending the past 75 minutes e-chatting with Quicken's tech support people, not to mention the last four years struggling with Quicken's very user un-friendly interface, I am determined never to purchase another Intuit product again.
Macworld has run four straight reviews of Quicken in which you have awarded it four mice, despite the fact that in Quicken 2004 you uncovered what you referred to as a "major bug". I don't think a financial software that could get you an IRS audit deserves four mice, and for the life of me I cannot understand how Macworld does. But the fact that Macworld overlooked this "major bug" presents a substantial reason to question Macworld's credibility. In addition, your own reviews have noted that successive versions of Quicken offered little in the way of new features; one might say their new features have amounted to nothing more than lipstick on an 800-pound gorilla.
Perhaps one of the drawbacks of the "grade inflation" evident in your last four reviews of Quicken for Mac is that the Mac development community is unable to see how poorly served Mac users have been by Quicken. But at the same time, it seems clear that Intuit is not interested in Mac customers. Why doesn't Macworld acknowledge this fact that so many of the rest of us have come to know through hours of frustrating experience? If, instead of marveling at the size of the 800-pound gorilla, Macworld would state the obvious - the gorilla is fat, old, and close to death - we might get a few more animals in the Mac financial software menagerie.

[Boris86]

I purchased the 2006 version because it was referred to as the "best" financial software available for the Mac. It has been a giant disappointment. This is the only application on my MacBook Pro that consistently shuts down without warning. It is the only application I have that reminds me of my PC days. Isn't there anything else?

[ge12ar]

Quicken is horrible-the Mac version is totally unacceptable. Can anyone recommend a personal finance program that at least has stock portfolio tracking performance as good as Quicken(hopefully better)? I'm at a loss and frankly my Macs are useless to me without such a program.

[beaty007]

I am certainly new to this forum but would like to add my voice to the fact that after having used Quicken for PC since the mid 90's & now Quicken for Mac for 1.5 years I can only state what a piece of junk I consider the "for Mac" version.

I also would love to see an honest review of Money Dance which I have read several positive posts about on this site today.

[cpoff]

We reviewed Money Dance, like three months ago.