Quantcast
Subscribe to magazine
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
Up to Discussions in Story Discussion
41 Replies Last post: Sep 12, 2007 10:20 PM by Xendren   Go to original post 1 2 3 Previous Next
Click to view jschaffe's profile New Member
jschaffe
35 posts since
Aug 14, 2001
15. Aug 28, 2007 9:02 AM in response to: Adwiz
Online alternatives
I completely agree with the concerns about storing all my financial information online, although there are some benefits.

Another thing I fear is banks, brokers, and mutual funds who want us to go totally paperless. I want statements printed by them showing my transactions and balances. No way I want to login some day and have by balance zeroed with no way to disprove it!
Reply
Click to view MacPCJustCreate's profile Member
MacPCJustCreate
627 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
16. Aug 28, 2007 9:31 AM in response to: Macworld.com
Matters Not!!!
Quote:<hr />
That is, if it were to slow down the pace of its software updates or to shift more of its development resources to an online versionwould that be a cause for legitimate worry among Mac users?

I suppose, in a sense, it might be. If a developer reaffirming its Mac commitment is encouraging, as I said it was earlier, then a developer curtailing Mac support would seem to be the opposite.

<hr />


This matters not to me. I am using Quicken 2002 on my 733 MHz PowerMac G4.

I am using QuickBooks 2006 at my Office for the businesses that I own. I determined that my Corporation would not upgrade to QuickBooks 2007 because Intuit did not add any compelling features, this after upgrading the previous 3 years. I would like to see QuickBooks Mac version gain feature parity and binary file comaptibility with the Windows version. This way no more QuickBooks Backup for Windows file to send to my CPA, I can just send my normal file and I can have available all of the features Windows users have available.

Intuit are also idiots in many ways -- I (my Corporation) bought the payroll service that links to QuickBooks with no indication that it was Windows only, even the F@#$ing QuickBooks for Mac manual indicated I could use the service, however I was later told that the service only worked with the Windows QuickBooks version. QuickBooks on the Mac has worked well for my application and I do not want to change now, however I was sorely tempted to shove-off Intuit after the payroll fiasco.
Reply
Click to view ffalacioso's profile New Member
ffalacioso
11 posts since
Feb 3, 2005
17. Aug 28, 2007 9:33 AM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: A world without Quicken
Sorry to say that but, even with AJAX and all, online applications still SUCK. Besides, if I wanted to be "platform agnostic" I wouldn't be writing this on a Mac.
Reply
Click to view MacPCJustCreate's profile Member
MacPCJustCreate
627 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
18. Aug 28, 2007 9:39 AM in response to: davebarnes
QuickBooks
Quote:<hr />
Some of us use QuickBooks and there is not a good alternative out there. Especially when you have a decade's worth of data.

<hr />


I have about 4 years of Corporate data in QuickBooks for Mac and I can understand your statement. I really hope that Intuit, instead of adding things like a forms designer -- hey I can print any background I want for my forms whoopee, brings the Mac version of QuickBooks into feature parity with the Windows version and brings binary file compatibility between the Windows and Macs versions so that both versions use the same exact file format and can open the files from either Mac or PC -- no more sending the QuickBooks for Windows backup file to the CPA.
Reply
Click to view Steve_S's profile Enthusiast
Steve_S
967 posts since
Sep 9, 2004
19. Aug 28, 2007 9:42 AM in response to: leicaman
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: A world without Quicken
Quote:<hr />
They should unite the codebase so that they only have to develop one version and compile it for two. How hard can it be if Mac games can be handled that way.

<hr />


I'm with you in concept, but your suggestion is just not practical on so many levels. First, I'll address your suggestion, then make one of my own along the same line.

Regarding develop one, compile for two... if only it were that simple. The short answer is that it's not. You cite Mac Games as your example. I'm guessing you're referring to the EA deal that is using Cider, right? With games, it's much easier to do because the games will have the same look and feel on both platforms. There are no specific platform conventions to follow in order for the app to feel native. Cider games are Windows games that translate functions like Directx to Mac equivalents. If you're dealing with layers beneath the surface, that's easy enough to do. That doesn't translate well to desktop applications.

But, to your point, your line of thinking is correct. That is, all of Quicken's functions, particularly the interfaces with banks, etc. should be handled as external libraries which are written in a platform independent manner. This would also insure that there are no Mac/PC specific issues when interfacing with banks. The GUI layer needs to be unique to each platform, but the heavy lifting (so to speak) should be generic. However, this method of developing takes a lot of planning and forward thinking up front.
Reply
Click to view cbh's profile New Member
cbh
60 posts since
Sep 16, 2004
20. Aug 28, 2007 9:47 AM in response to: MacPCJustCreate
Re: QuickBooks
I might be more concerned about Quicken if it were something I used more than once every couple of days for relatively simple transactions. Debits and credits haven't changed much for a zillion years. We're not talking Photoshop here, so short of changes to online banking accessibility I can't see spending money on upgrades.

As far as the business is concerned I am still using MYOB, long abandoned in Canada, but still working just fine on my OSX 10.4.10 G5. Again while I've looked at Moneydance and Moneyworks, I can't see any compelling reason to go beyond what is, let's face it, a utility for what are probably the least interesting tasks and most infrequent tasksI have to do.

Cheers
Chris Hutcheson
Reply
Click to view MacPCJustCreate's profile Member
MacPCJustCreate
627 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
21. Aug 28, 2007 9:47 AM in response to: charlieartist
CPA Support of MYOB???
Quote:<hr />
Well, there is--MYOB.

<hr />


Yes there is MYOB, however you may have a hard time finding a CPA to send your files to. Now if you are stand alone without using a CPA then OK, however in my research a few years back MYOB seemed problematic with CPAs, at least the ones I talked with and that's one of the reasons I went with QuickBooks -- it can create a Windows backup file that the Windows based CPA can restore and do their work.

Anyone else have any comments about MYOB, QuickBooks, etc and CPA compatibility?
Reply
Click to view MacPCJustCreate's profile Member
MacPCJustCreate
627 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
22. Aug 28, 2007 9:50 AM in response to: sigma8
Quicken Not Quicker
Quote:<hr />
But could somebody tell me why it really matters that we get a new quicken every year?

Tax-programs, I can understand..but doesn't tracking your bank accounts stay pretty much the same from year to year?

<hr />


I am using Quicken 2002 on my PowerMac at home. The annual "upgrades" just seemed to add fluff and the 2002 version does all that I need for now (note: I do not download transactions from my bank, I enter all trnasactions manually).
Reply
Click to view MacPCJustCreate's profile Member
MacPCJustCreate
627 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
23. Aug 28, 2007 9:57 AM in response to: cbh
Transaction Action
Quote:<hr />
I can't see any compelling reason to go beyond what is, let's face it, a utility for what are probably the least interesting tasks and most infrequent tasksI have to do.

<hr />


When the latest tax return for your entity is backed by thousands of transactions and you have ten's of thousands of transactions in your file then what may be an inconsequential utility to you becomes an essential time and life saver for me.
Reply
Click to view zeejay's profile New Member
zeejay
46 posts since
Jun 15, 2007
24. Aug 28, 2007 10:07 AM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: A world without Quicken
The thing that I find most puzzling about this whole thing is that for Intuit, Mac development should be an incredibly profitable endeavor - the ROI on the development costs should be off the hook. A no-brainer. The Mac platform is hot right now, on the rise, easy to market to, and they've got a ton of equity (and a highly leverageable codebase) in the Quicken app/brand. That they can't or choose not to capitalize speaks to a broken development organization, indecisive leadership, or just plain poor product marketing.
Reply
Click to view hayesk's profile Member
hayesk
677 posts since
Aug 7, 2004
25. Aug 28, 2007 10:59 AM in response to: zeejay
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: A world without Quicken
Quote:<hr />
The thing that I find most puzzling about this whole thing is that for Intuit, Mac development should be an incredibly profitable endeavor - the ROI on the development costs should be off the hook.

<hr />


For that to happen you need competent and supportive management and competent software designers. Intuit is missing at least one of the above.
Reply
Click to view chuckbo's profile New Member
chuckbo
51 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
26. Aug 28, 2007 11:03 AM in response to: leicaman
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: A world without Quicken
Quote:<hr />
Until alternative programs can go to my bank and download my transaction, and make payments through my bank, I will not give up Quicken. And don't tell me to download some file and then import it manually. It never works right.


<hr />


Not me -- you won't get me automating transaction downloading. I've had too many friends who did that and had incorrect transactions downloaded that they ended up paying ... and they didn't notice the mistake until it was too late for them to protest it. No thanks, I'm happy to reconcile my statements manually.
Chuck
Reply
Click to view Edgejr's profile New Member
Edgejr
32 posts since
Mar 11, 2004
27. Aug 28, 2007 11:12 AM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: A world without Quicken
I'd love to see Mr. Michaels and the rest of the Mac crew put some real pressure on Intiut to release a version for the Mac that has complete cross platform data compatibility. Currently moving Quicken for Windows data to the Mac requires eye of newt, deep incantations, and alignment of Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon, and Mars. And then getting it to work right is practically impossible.

A user should be able to open a Q for Mac data file on Q for Windows and vice versa. Come on MacWorld, use your bully pulpit for good. If Quicken offers full cross platform data compatibility, I'll put my money where my mouth is an upgrade from my old version!
Reply
Click to view chuckbo's profile New Member
chuckbo
51 posts since
Sep 1, 2004
28. Aug 28, 2007 11:14 AM in response to: MacPCJustCreate
Re: Quicken 2002 good enough
Quote:<hr />
Quote:<hr />
But could somebody tell me why it really matters that we get a new quicken every year?

Tax-programs, I can understand..but doesn't tracking your bank accounts stay pretty much the same from year to year?

<hr />


I am using Quicken 2002 on my PowerMac at home. The annual "upgrades" just seemed to add fluff and the 2002 version does all that I need for now (note: I do not download transactions from my bank, I enter all trnasactions manually).

<hr />


That's about how I feel. I'm still using Quicken 2002 because they haven't added any improvements that I would use. But Intuit makes me nervous, as a company, because of the way they try to force upgrades. Like in Canada, when they used a software time bomb to kill Quickbooks (it was Quickbook, right) two years after people had bought it to force them to upgrade. It worries me that that might've been a trial run before doing it to later versions of Quicken. Already, they've tried to prevent the download of stock prices unless I upgrade, even though that was a feature that was promised in the 2002 version. I figure that in later versions, they'll have it set up so you can't do the download with versions older than a year or two.

So I'm looking at iBank and trying to give them suggestions to make it conversion-worthy.

Or maybe I'll dust off the version that I wrote and used to use and update it with features I like from Quicken.
Chuck
Reply
Click to view flysi's profile New Member
flysi
10 posts since
Feb 5, 2002
29. Aug 28, 2007 11:24 AM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: A world without Quicken
After much wheedling and convincing, I managed to get my wife to switch over to a Mac. She made the transition happily, with one exception: she was completely unimpressed by any personal finance solution that was available on OS X - to the point that we had a big, stupid, ancient Dell sitting around our house serving the sole function of running MS Money. I didn't get it at first - until I got my MacBook Pro and decided to take Money for a test run via Parallels, and was blown away by how well it integrates with all of my banking and investment accounts, and what a polished product it is, compared with Quicken for Mac.

Like many others on this forum, I've got too many years invested in using Quicken to switch, which is why year after year, I hold out hope that the new version of Quicken will blow my socks off, and I won't have MS Money-envy anymore, but it just hasn't happened.

And by the way, most of those Quicken alternatives seem okay I guess, but for anyone who's got more than a checking account and a credit card or two, I just don't think they would cut it as Quicken replacements, despite all of Quicken's shortcomings.
Reply
Go to original post 1 2 3 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

Macworld powered by Jive Software's Clearspace ® -1.10.1 (Version: {3}) - Submit product feedback
© Jive Software