I read that any version after 2003 will stop downloading transactions after
two years, forcing users to upgrade. Is that correct?



"Chris Cowles" <NoSpam[at]For.me> wrote in message
news:eD3rzSpgFHA.1480[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- quote -

I would say 2004 is an upgrade from 2003.

2005 is of no particular benefit, unless you want online banking with a bank
that doesn't support Money directly, and the account duplication issues
don't affect you.

2006 probably has some functional improvements over 2005. Whether it's an
upgrade for me over the functionality of 2004 I have not yet concluded but,
with respect to speed, it's a terrible downgrade.

YMMV.
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL



"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply[at]swen.com> wrote in message
news:uhfe8ZngFHA.1468[at]TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
- quote -

Update or not, it really boils down to your individual perceptions.
I've updated every year since I started in 1995 and now have 10 years
of detail data to manage my financial affairs. I am careful NOT to
assume Money can do all the neat things it says it can do
AUTOMATICALLY. If you KNOW how to think thru your financial
transactions in your own head and KNOW how to add 2 + 3 in your own
head, then you can deal with each years issues that Money programers
bring to us. Money 2005 didn't bring me much improvement over Money
2004, BUT it didn't hurt me at all because I stayed away from all the
Yodlee stuff and dealt directly (online) with my banks and credit card
accounts on a daily basis. If I find that Money 2006 can truly
integrate with MY banks and credit card companies, then I will use the
facility. If it doesn't work right yet, I'll continue doing it the way
I have. The $20-$30 a year cost of the product to me is peanuts
compared to the value I have gotten from the product thru the years.
It's always fun to see what the new version looks like. BUT I proceed
causiously and do not run and buy it at first issue. I read what people
say on this site and then work with it. Let's see what happens this
time. Steve

David,

According to an earlier post today, M06 has successfully converted
files from each prior version back to 95!

Regardless, I can't see where either of the two strategies you mention
is better. Either one should work just fine (assuming a non-corrupted
data file).

Regards,
JB

I dunno... I've avoided upgrading from 2003 because of all the reported
problems. Is there any great benefit to moving up to 2006?



"David Arnstein" <arnstein[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:dahgdu$kcv$1[at]reader2.panix.com...
- quote -

The early comments on Money 2006 indicate that there is not much
improvement over Money 2005. This makes me wonder whether I should even
bother with Money 2006 (I already have Money 2005).

My main concern with this type of product is stability. Judging from
remarks in this froup, the upgrade process from 2004 to 2005 was especially
nasty. Data was lost, and tears were shed. This suggests that frequent
upgrades should be avoided: the upgrade process itself is unpleasant.

On the other hand, I'm concerned that the upgrade from Money 2005 (all
the way) to Money 2007 might be more defective than a two step upgrade
from Money 2005 to Money 2006, and then from Money 2006 to Money 2007.

My goal is to prevent data loss and save work for myself. I don't mind
paying Microsoft a few dollars every year for its flaky wares. Given
these priorities, which strategy do you think is better? Upgrade every
year, or upgrade every two years?
--
David Arnstein
arnstein+usenet[at]pobox.com