I agree. It makes you wonder how reliable the reviews of other
software are.

Phil

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:18:53 -0600, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:

- quote -

They probably concentrate on ease of setup because that's as far as they
really get with the product.

"Carlos G" <cgnjunkregDELETE[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uZ0Ll%23mhEHA.356[at]tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
- quote -

It's truly amazing how a lot of these reviews, and not just for Money, focus
on the "ease of setup", wizards, etc. If the software is working correctly
you only setup once, right? So what if it is not perfect.....

- quote -

In addition to the things that you mentioned, Dick, I also have had
problems with the budget not accurately handling time constrained
bills or paychecks (i.e., those that have a start and stop date), and
cash flow forcasting also has some quirks. The investment section has
several issues that I won't go into, as well. Some good clean-up of
these features, as well as those that others have mentioned in this
thread, would be welcomed, but they've been there a long time.

Phil

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:25:00 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld
<ronrosenfeld[at]nospam.org> wrote:

- quote -

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 06:01:43 -0600, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:

- quote -

Have they fixed the bug in the Bills & Deposits area that leads to APAYs not
showing up for several months on the calendar and elsewhere? (M'03)




--ron

That would be nice too. But aside from the tax estimator mangled display
problem, the morphing to paycheck scheduled item problem, the transactions
in category view sums voids problem, BP still does strange things sometimes,
401k manager has never worked well if the market is going down, and maybe
some others, I don't see any debilitating bugs.

<Phil> wrote in message news:jh39i0p7u7vt1nnoprauuv7jshg0lco3lc[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

After several years of bugs, I'd settle for some of the "basics" just
working correctly.

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:50:43 -0600, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:

- quote -

From the pictures and text, I figured it out: all this dummy vs. expert view
fruh-frah is about Ctrl+T (or, if you will, View|Top Line Only/All
Transaction Details)?!? That's been in there since, what, Mv2? Or was it v1?
"A new default register view displays only the basic information of a
transaction: check number (if applicable), payee, date, amount, account
balance, and whether the transaction has been reconciled. The traditional
advanced view, which shows categories and memos, remains available as a
display option."

Wow, another breakthrough feature, described by somebody who has never used
the product before: "I was able to categorize each expenditure, choosing
from a drop-down list of categories that seems to have been downloaded along
with the transaction date. Missing, however, were categories for
expenditures that represented transfers between accounts; for example, a
credit card payment was listed as 'uncategorized.'"

"In most respects, Money 2005 closely resembles its predecessor. But the new
version does change a few things to make the software less intimidating.
Setup doesn't push you to enter each and every account; you can jump in and
start using the software right away, though you'll get more out of it if you
track all your accounts." Cancel was too hard to find?!?!

This bloviation about things that are, at best, not new (in all of these
reviews) represents a new low in the annual Money product reviews. I keep
hearing about how much is new in M05. Show me the beef.

<Phil> wrote in message news:qfs7i0hvmj2h8btu5ep37li2j6ddt37l6g[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

Here is the link to the review by PC World of Money 2005:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,117436,00.asp