Should I install Q2010 or continue with Q2009?
in [Quicken]
|
From: Han on 10 Mar 2010 21:08 Notan <notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in news:PfWdnR95O5k00wXWnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > On 3/10/2010 6:44 PM, Han wrote: >> Notan<notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in >> news:_NudnTZN3JTqlQXWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com: >> >>> On 3/10/2010 1:42 PM, Targ wrote: >>>> In alt.comp.software.financial.quicken, Gary wrote: >>>> >>>>> With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's >>>>> not as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement. >>>> >>>> Could it be that some of what you see as grief is people who were >>>> not previously using Quicken 2009, but were using Microsoft Money? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I >>>>> already have the program ... just have been delaying installing it >>>>> because of all the complaints I've read. >>>> >>>> I understand that rearranging the human interface can cause grief to >>>> people experienced in the earlier version. I think it is in the >>>> nature of software designers and marketing people to want to do >>>> change as an objective. Now if upper management (not just Intuit) >>>> would make "least astonishment" as an objective, that would improve >>>> software design. >>>> >>>> The description in >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment is not >>>> quite what I am thinking of. Instead designers and "marketing" >>>> should avoid human interface change for sake of change between >>>> versions. I know that is hard due to the desire to look as if you >>>> are accomplishing things. >>> >>> Again, if Intuit would just leave Quicken alone (i.e. no more >>> "improvements"), fix the bugs and offer connection services as >>> a subscription-based model, I'd think they (and we!) would do >>> just fine. >> >> I agree with Notan. >> FWIW, I have no regrets upgrading from 08 to 10. > > Just out of curiosity, why'd you go for 2010 and not wait for 2011, > knowing that 2008 won't sunset for another year? I had been doing every other year for a while, and it seemed time again. Not a very good reason, nor a very frugal one, but there it is. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid
From: Notan on 10 Mar 2010 21:15 On 3/10/2010 7:08 PM, Han wrote: > Notan<notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in > news:PfWdnR95O5k00wXWnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > >> On 3/10/2010 6:44 PM, Han wrote: >>> Notan<notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in >>> news:_NudnTZN3JTqlQXWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com: >>> >>>> On 3/10/2010 1:42 PM, Targ wrote: >>>>> In alt.comp.software.financial.quicken, Gary wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's >>>>>> not as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement. >>>>> >>>>> Could it be that some of what you see as grief is people who were >>>>> not previously using Quicken 2009, but were using Microsoft Money? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I >>>>>> already have the program ... just have been delaying installing it >>>>>> because of all the complaints I've read. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that rearranging the human interface can cause grief to >>>>> people experienced in the earlier version. I think it is in the >>>>> nature of software designers and marketing people to want to do >>>>> change as an objective. Now if upper management (not just Intuit) >>>>> would make "least astonishment" as an objective, that would improve >>>>> software design. >>>>> >>>>> The description in >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment is not >>>>> quite what I am thinking of. Instead designers and "marketing" >>>>> should avoid human interface change for sake of change between >>>>> versions. I know that is hard due to the desire to look as if you >>>>> are accomplishing things. >>>> >>>> Again, if Intuit would just leave Quicken alone (i.e. no more >>>> "improvements"), fix the bugs and offer connection services as >>>> a subscription-based model, I'd think they (and we!) would do >>>> just fine. >>> >>> I agree with Notan. >>> FWIW, I have no regrets upgrading from 08 to 10. >> >> Just out of curiosity, why'd you go for 2010 and not wait for 2011, >> knowing that 2008 won't sunset for another year? > > I had been doing every other year for a while, and it seemed time again. > Not a very good reason, nor a very frugal one, but there it is. For me, it's not a matter of frugality, but a matter of the version I'm currently using (2008) works. Come 2011, it'll be a different story.
From: Han on 10 Mar 2010 21:20 Notan <notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in news:p8udncNlIrS3zwXWnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > On 3/10/2010 7:08 PM, Han wrote: >> Notan<notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in >> news:PfWdnR95O5k00wXWnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: >> >>> On 3/10/2010 6:44 PM, Han wrote: >>>> Notan<notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in >>>> news:_NudnTZN3JTqlQXWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com: >>>> >>>>> On 3/10/2010 1:42 PM, Targ wrote: >>>>>> In alt.comp.software.financial.quicken, Gary wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if >>>>>>> it's not as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Could it be that some of what you see as grief is people who were >>>>>> not previously using Quicken 2009, but were using Microsoft >>>>>> Money? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I >>>>>>> already have the program ... just have been delaying installing >>>>>>> it because of all the complaints I've read. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that rearranging the human interface can cause grief >>>>>> to people experienced in the earlier version. I think it is in >>>>>> the nature of software designers and marketing people to want to >>>>>> do change as an objective. Now if upper management (not just >>>>>> Intuit) would make "least astonishment" as an objective, that >>>>>> would improve software design. >>>>>> >>>>>> The description in >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment is >>>>>> not quite what I am thinking of. Instead designers and >>>>>> "marketing" should avoid human interface change for sake of >>>>>> change between versions. I know that is hard due to the desire to >>>>>> look as if you are accomplishing things. >>>>> >>>>> Again, if Intuit would just leave Quicken alone (i.e. no more >>>>> "improvements"), fix the bugs and offer connection services as >>>>> a subscription-based model, I'd think they (and we!) would do >>>>> just fine. >>>> >>>> I agree with Notan. >>>> FWIW, I have no regrets upgrading from 08 to 10. >>> >>> Just out of curiosity, why'd you go for 2010 and not wait for 2011, >>> knowing that 2008 won't sunset for another year? >> >> I had been doing every other year for a while, and it seemed time >> again. Not a very good reason, nor a very frugal one, but there it >> is. > > For me, it's not a matter of frugality, but a matter of the version > I'm currently using (2008) works. > > Come 2011, it'll be a different story. That's fine by me. If it works for you, go for it. -- Best regards Han email address is invalid
From: Ira on 11 Mar 2010 13:23 I agonized over whether to spend the money on Q2010 given how few new features there were. HOWEVER, in retrospect, I LOVE Q2010 as it resolved one of the most plaguing of all the bugs I had been experiencing ... extreme delays between entering a transaction and receiving control back (same delays applied to each click of each transaction during a reconcile). Q2009 and all prior to it, had it. Q2010 - fixed. I am very happy to have moved to Q2010 On 3/10/2010 10:22 AM, Gary wrote: > With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's not > as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement. > > Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I already have > the program ... just have been delaying installing it because of all the > complaints I've read. >
From: Notan on 11 Mar 2010 13:45 On 3/11/2010 11:23 AM, Ira wrote: > I agonized over whether to spend the money on Q2010 given how few new > features there were. HOWEVER, in retrospect, I LOVE Q2010 as it resolved > one of the most plaguing of all the bugs I had been experiencing ... > extreme delays between entering a transaction and receiving control back > (same delays applied to each click of each transaction during a > reconcile). Q2009 and all prior to it, had it. Q2010 - fixed. > > I am very happy to have moved to Q2010 <snip> As a programmer from WAY back, we always had to write tight, efficient code, not for speed, but just so programs would run on the current systems. Nowadays, with microprocessors as fast as they are, and system memory as large as it is, programming has gotten very sloppy. There's no reason screen changes shouldn't be instantaneous, unless they're subject to outside influences, such as Internet access. Just my 2 cents.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: gain % vs total return vs high divs Next: Is there a way to add archived transactions? |