My Initial Observations on US Money Deluxe 2006

#29 08-19-2005, 07:30 PM

"Lance" <Lance[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8DBF6C35-BBDC-4EFF-AE87-333269FB4CB0[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

> Quicken is no better in my opinion. I would
> pay good money for a money management application that did what it was
> supposed to.

No shit. I've been saying that for a while. I'd happily pay double the
current price.

#28 08-18-2005, 04:15 PM

Sam's Club and Costco have been in this range. Also watch the Sunday ads for
the next several weeks, not that Q06 is out.

When M06 opened/upgraded your M05 file, it saved your then-current file as
[name of file].M14. Changes you've entered since will only be in the .MNY
(v. 15) file. You can rename the .m14 file to .MNY and M05--upgraded to the
same patch level it was running when it wrote the file--will use it.

"JC" <jclacc[at]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uAwNeYApFHA.764[at]TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> 25 dollars?? Where can I get that deal for deluxe 2006? I am a former user
> of 2005; right now i am in the demo version wich will expire in a couple
> of
> weeks. My personal opinion re:2006 .... It's the same thing as 2005 I just
> wish I can uninstall 2006 keepeing all the info into 2005.

#27 08-18-2005, 03:04 PM

25 dollars?? Where can I get that deal for deluxe 2006? I am a former user
of 2005; right now i am in the demo version wich will expire in a couple of
weeks. My personal opinion re:2006 .... It's the same thing as 2005 I just
wish I can uninstall 2006 keepeing all the info into 2005.

"Steve" <sjcohen730[at]aol.com> wrote in message
news:1124372996.092088.314120[at]f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

> Lance,
> If you think a $25 program like Money is going to do
> everything YOU want the way YOU want it, you are kidding yourself. It
> is much quicker to enter data manually, even twice, once in Money and
> once thru your bank, than play around with all these matching things.
> JMHO. Steve

#26 08-18-2005, 02:02 PM

Lance,
If you think a $25 program like Money is going to do
everything YOU want the way YOU want it, you are kidding yourself. It
is much quicker to enter data manually, even twice, once in Money and
once thru your bank, than play around with all these matching things.
JMHO. Steve

#25 08-18-2005, 03:31 AM

In Money 2006 it seems that all of the scrolling lists -- such as account
register and cash flow forecast -- scroll VERY SLOWLY one line at a time when
you use your mouse's scroll wheel. Unusable for me.

It does seem that in general working with posted transactions is faster...
there isn't this 5-10 second delay when you are wondering what could it
possibly be working on... all I did was match my transaction.

I don't see the improved transaction matching. The Citibank bill payment
transaction I downloaded from my bank did not match up to the pending
Citibank bill in Money. Instead it matched to my utility bill, just above
Citibank. I get so tired of unmatching Money's mistakes, and waiting 5-10
seconds for it to get from matching to the previous screen then 5-10 seconds
to get back to the register.

Why can't these things be fixed. And what about the debt reduction
planner... ALWAYS screwed up and scheduling ridiculous payments that blow
away your defined allocation. I have not had a chance to look at this in
2006 because I'm already getting turned off, but it has not worked properly
in the last several releases. Quicken is no better in my opinion. I would
pay good money for a money management application that did what it was
supposed to.

"Chris Cowles" wrote:

- quote -

> Whatever made them so slow compared to 2004? It's painful, in comparison.
> "Snuf" <sfoobar8[at]msn.com> wrote in message
> news:kqqdncpG9dCBAFHfRVn-1w[at]comcast.com...
> > Speed comparisons are nearly identical between M05 and M06.

#24 07-12-2005, 07:52 PM

We will contact you directly.

In the hopes of including some real content, I'll point out that we do seem
to have unusually bad performance on some laptop machines. I think it has to
do with how some of our implementation details test hard drive performance,
but the Dev Manager thinks I'm nuts. It is true, though anecdotal, that some
machines have responded well to the latest updates to controller drivers.

-Russ Paul-Jones
MS Money Product Unit Manager
russpj[at]microsoft.com

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:e1NbXN3gFHA.1252[at]TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> I ran a test cycle tonight on my 850 MHz/384MB laptop--which significantly
> exceeds stated system requirements for M06. Nothing else of consequence was
> running. File was stored locally. I did not spend much time doing anything
> at the test points. I just waited till Money was ready to respond and then
> went on to the next test point. And I can enter transactions/run the app
> reasonably proficiently. Times are based on the Systray clock so are not as
> fine grained as might be desirable.
> 8:57 start Money from start menu
> 9:01 splash screen painted away
> 9:05 welcome to trial comes up
> (selected an account, looked at paycheck splits in one transaction,
> entered another, clicked to return to home page at 9:07)
> Selected bill summary at 9:12
> (entered one transaction to register, edited occurrence of another to
> change date, clicked forecast cash flow at 9:16, changed forecast to next
> 12 months, at 9:17, clicked close and postpone backup at 9:19)
> msmoney.exe disappeared from task manager processes at 9:36
> (That's right--17 minutes from the time I clicked exit until it actually
> terminates. I kid you not. It's impossible to even guess what if was doing
> with all of those CPU cycles.)
> Money was running in the high 90s of the available CPU and was in
> hourglass/not responding to the message queue essentially the whole time
> except when it let me do useful work. It never used over 60MB or so of
> memory footprint.
> Now we could quibble all night on test methods, Jet performance,
> Tools|Settings settings, whether my laptop is state-of-the-art, Athlons
> vs. Pentium (this is a PIII), the phases of the moon and so forth, but it
> just seems to me that there is no way to consider an application that
> takes 39 minutes to let a user do this little work, on a machine that
> easily exceeds the application system requirements, as anything but
> unacceptably and unusably slow. (All I did was look at one transaction,
> enter another, enter one scheduled bill, edit another, and then look at
> cash flow forecasts for two time periods. I can't imagine how painful it
> would take to use this thing to for real work.) YMMV, mine doesn't seem
> to.
> Note that this machine can query out an account balance for my largest
> account using my Access-based PFM proof-of-concept database prototype in
> about two or three seconds--with the file stored on the machine downstairs
> and accessed via 802.11G WiFi.
> It may be my data. It may be my machine. It may be my test methods. Or M06
> in my environment may just be unusably slow.
> Russ P-J, are you listening? I gave M05 a 21 day parallel data entry trial
> on this machine before I punted it. I won't even waste the energy on an
> M06 trial at this performance level. Life's too short. If you or any of
> the team want to take the conversation off-line or get more data for
> analysis or whatever, you know where to find me. If not, I'll assume this
> is the performance level you are proud to be shipping.
> "Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
> message news:eF5NAoxgFHA.3256[at]TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > My early results indicate performance issues across more than just that.
> > The
> > sample file seems relatively zippy and others are not reporting issues or
> > are thrilled with M06 performance. I wish I could report that. As noted,
> > I
> > want to do some more evaluation when I get the chance. I do not shock
> > easily
> > when it comes to Money performance and, as noted, the M06 performance
> > levels
> > I am seeing so far are shockingly poor.

#23 07-12-2005, 05:59 PM

Thanks. It sounds like the Clean Boot didn't make a difference

And the list of modules on the home page is the default list (or at least
it's what I got on my Home page in 2006).

If you change Money's startup page to something other than the Home page
(i.e. the Account list) does it behave significantly different? Since this
would only affect Money startup and navigation to/from the home page, it may
not.

I don't remember, have you tried your file on a different machine to see if
you get any significant performance difference?

-Mark

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:uahWq3phFHA.1968[at]TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> I did Clean Boot per MSKB 31053 on both machines. Here's the dope:
> Machine: Testcase: Time
> (previously reported)
> Laptop: regular boot, M06, my data file upgraded to M06, test cycle
> previously identified: 39+ minutes
> Laptop: regular boot, M06, M06 Sample, test cycle previously identified:
> 2:33
> Desktop: regular boot, M04, my data file, test cycle previously
identified:
> 6:24
> (newly tested tonight)
> Laptop: clean boot, M06, my data file upgraded to M06, test cycle
previously
> identified: 52:35
> Laptop: clean boot (but after above), M06, M06 Sample, test cycle
previously
> identified: 2:15
> Desktop: clean boot, M04, my data file, test cycle previously identified:
> 5:24
> Desktop: clean boot, M04 Sample, test cycle previously identified: 1:15
> These are manually run, so the short duration tests have progressively
more
> human contribution to variability and to duration--how fast can I do it
> reasonably accurately and how much time do I spend doing it as a function
of
> the total duration. There is a fair amount of variability, but this
testing
> is so crude and uncontrolled that, with one exception, I'm not inclined to
> take the clean to regular boot time differences as gospel. Why the laptop
> was so much slower on the real data file after the clean boot is a
mystery;
> regardless, it was beyond painful. And it wasn't just navigating to/from
> home page. It was painful pretty much everywhere. As to what's on the home
> page, I forgot to PrtScr when I was at a home page. Big Mistake! So I
opened
> the file again. It literally took almost half an hour of Money running at
> 100% CPU to get in and out and record that these are the elements on the
> home page:
> favorite accounts
> bills and deposits
> what's new in microsoft money
> reminders
> spending by category
> spending tracker: this month
> My M06 testing will shortly cease. It just isn't usable with my data file
in
> my environments. It isn't real zippy with the sample file, either.
> "Mark" <abcd[at]abcd.com> wrote in message
> news:42d2931f$1[at]news.microsoft.com...
> > 6:24 seems long for your test case in Sample, and of course 30+ minutes
> > for
> > your actual file is bad.
> > Just like Rick, I'm wondering if it is some conflict with things running
> > in
> > the back ground. Have you tried under a "clean boot" scenario to see if
it
> > significantly improves performance?
> > Especially since the largest chunk of time appeared to be from exit to
the
> > msmoney process actually stopping.
> > > From your test case, it also sounds like the next largest time periods
> > were
> > going to/from the Home page. Is that true?
> > If so, what modules do you have on the Home page (just the Standard
view,
> > or
> > a customized set)?

#22 07-12-2005, 04:57 AM

I did Clean Boot per MSKB 31053 on both machines. Here's the dope:

Machine: Testcase: Time

(previously reported)
Laptop: regular boot, M06, my data file upgraded to M06, test cycle
previously identified: 39+ minutes
Laptop: regular boot, M06, M06 Sample, test cycle previously identified:
2:33
Desktop: regular boot, M04, my data file, test cycle previously identified:
6:24

(newly tested tonight)
Laptop: clean boot, M06, my data file upgraded to M06, test cycle previously
identified: 52:35
Laptop: clean boot (but after above), M06, M06 Sample, test cycle previously
identified: 2:15
Desktop: clean boot, M04, my data file, test cycle previously identified:
5:24
Desktop: clean boot, M04 Sample, test cycle previously identified: 1:15

These are manually run, so the short duration tests have progressively more
human contribution to variability and to duration--how fast can I do it
reasonably accurately and how much time do I spend doing it as a function of
the total duration. There is a fair amount of variability, but this testing
is so crude and uncontrolled that, with one exception, I'm not inclined to
take the clean to regular boot time differences as gospel. Why the laptop
was so much slower on the real data file after the clean boot is a mystery;
regardless, it was beyond painful. And it wasn't just navigating to/from
home page. It was painful pretty much everywhere. As to what's on the home
page, I forgot to PrtScr when I was at a home page. Big Mistake! So I opened
the file again. It literally took almost half an hour of Money running at
100% CPU to get in and out and record that these are the elements on the
home page:

favorite accounts
bills and deposits
what's new in microsoft money
reminders
spending by category
spending tracker: this month

My M06 testing will shortly cease. It just isn't usable with my data file in
my environments. It isn't real zippy with the sample file, either.

"Mark" <abcd[at]abcd.com> wrote in message
news:42d2931f$1[at]news.microsoft.com...
- quote -

> 6:24 seems long for your test case in Sample, and of course 30+ minutes
> for
> your actual file is bad.
> Just like Rick, I'm wondering if it is some conflict with things running
> in
> the back ground. Have you tried under a "clean boot" scenario to see if it
> significantly improves performance?
> Especially since the largest chunk of time appeared to be from exit to the
> msmoney process actually stopping.
> From your test case, it also sounds like the next largest time periods
> were
> going to/from the Home page. Is that true?
> If so, what modules do you have on the Home page (just the Standard view,
> or
> a customized set)?

#21 07-11-2005, 03:41 PM

6:24 seems long for your test case in Sample, and of course 30+ minutes for
your actual file is bad.
Just like Rick, I'm wondering if it is some conflict with things running in
the back ground. Have you tried under a "clean boot" scenario to see if it
significantly improves performance?
Especially since the largest chunk of time appeared to be from exit to the
msmoney process actually stopping.

From your test case, it also sounds like the next largest time periods were
going to/from the Home page. Is that true?
If so, what modules do you have on the Home page (just the Standard view, or
a customized set)?

-Mark

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:uF6NcePhFHA.3256[at]TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> I never have been able to confirm any problems here and have run SETI
Since
> Hector Was A Puppy--though I haven't always had it run full time. When
these
> reports have come up periodically, I've always tested and found no
> "observable" change. I haven't done detailed performance analysis to prove
> it.
> "Richard Bollar" <bollar[at]bollar.org> wrote in message
> news:em7RfVPhFHA.3340[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > FWIW, M03 did not function well with SETI. It had several threads that
> > were lower priority than SETI and it took ages to complete anything.
> > Turning SETI off doubled the speed for me. Unfortunately I never did
the
> > same test with newer versions, so I don't know if that could possibly
> > still be a problem.

#20 07-10-2005, 02:34 AM

I never have been able to confirm any problems here and have run SETI Since
Hector Was A Puppy--though I haven't always had it run full time. When these
reports have come up periodically, I've always tested and found no
"observable" change. I haven't done detailed performance analysis to prove
it.

"Richard Bollar" <bollar[at]bollar.org> wrote in message
news:em7RfVPhFHA.3340[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> FWIW, M03 did not function well with SETI. It had several threads that
> were lower priority than SETI and it took ages to complete anything.
> Turning SETI off doubled the speed for me. Unfortunately I never did the
> same test with newer versions, so I don't know if that could possibly
> still be a problem.

#19 07-10-2005, 02:16 AM

FWIW, M03 did not function well with SETI. It had several threads that were
lower priority than SETI and it took ages to complete anything. Turning
SETI off doubled the speed for me. Unfortunately I never did the same test
with newer versions, so I don't know if that could possibly still be a
problem.

--

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:Oh5lh1IhFHA.3256[at]TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> Sorry it took so long to get back on this. I was at work four hours late
> last night trying to get a release CD kicked out the door. (Arrgh, Almost
> But Not Quite Yet, One More Thing To Fix.)
> Per request, I re-ran the test cycle on the laptop. I timed it with my
> watch. 2:33 to do the test cycle with the sample file. That's 36+ minutes
> less than the run with my real data file.
> To get some rough idea how M06 relates to M04 in my environment, I ran the
> cycle on the M04 production machine. (2.2 GHz P4, 1GB PC2700, ATA-100
> RAID0 on Seagate Barracuda IV.) I didn't make any concessions to the test
> environment. Seti (BOINC) was still running the whole time. Full register
> feedback was enabled--though it never had time to draw. The test cycle
> took 6:24. That included a backup to one of my servers over the net at the
> end and I had to say no, I didn't want to back up to floppies. The CPU
> time accumulated by Money was almost exactly 5:00 when it exited task
> manager. Money never topped 46MB memory footprint.
> How should I normalize this to M06 on the laptop? Let's entirely
> arbitrarily assume the desktop is 5x faster than the desktop. (I'd bet
> that's pessimistically in the ballpark.) That'd still put M04 at 33
> minutes or so for the test cycle on the laptop. That's 20% or so faster
> than M06.
> So, in incredibly crude terms, M06 takes 33% more memory than M04 and
> returns optimistically 20% less performance than M04 in my environment
> with my data. Not very impressive at all. Embarrassing, really.
> "Mark" <abcd[at]abcd.com> wrote in message
> news:42ce9ce2$1[at]news.microsoft.com...
> > I thought you'd mentioned previously that the Sample file performed
> > faster.
> > If you walked through this same scenario using the Sample file, is
> > performance similar?

#18 07-09-2005, 08:10 PM

I didn't think it was too bad and doubt I could do all of that--by hand
without test tooling--in much under 90 seconds. But it certainly never seems
Zippy or Responsive or Speedy. Considering it's the fastest the app will
ever get on that machine, I'd think it shamefully slow had I developed it
and quoted those system requirements. But I've thought that since about M01.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup[at]please.tnx> wrote in message
news:nha0d153f7u99rmjs0vn6mg0nk0dg9ffhg[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> I was thinking about the 2:33. That is not to say that I went thru
> the cycle myself.

#17 07-09-2005, 07:51 PM

In microsoft.public.money, Dick Watson wrote:

- quote -

> "Cal Learner wrote:
> > That real file performance is unusable, and the performance on the
> > sample did not seem good either.
> The 6:24 or the 39 minutes? I agree re. the 39 minutes. I live at the 6:24
> level.

I was thinking about the 2:33. That is not to say that I went thru
the cycle myself.

#16 07-09-2005, 07:38 PM

"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup[at]please.tnx> wrote in message
news:ln10d11ja6rjsk99jlbtmnre3elq3vkaqs[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> That real file performance is unusable, and the performance on the
> sample did not seem good either.

The 6:24 or the 39 minutes? I agree re. the 39 minutes. I live at the 6:24
level.

- quote -

> This is a long shot: I had once linked some MS analyzer program into
> Money. I think it was aimed at developers to see how well a program
> they were developing conformed to XP standards or some such. It
> added instrumentation code. Money crawled. (This might have been
> circa 2003, maybe before). Uninstalling the analyzer did not get
> Money back to normal.
> I forget what the fix was-- maybe reinstalling Money after
> uninstalling the analyzer. Maybe I restored a disk image. Maybe I
> reinstalled Windows. I just remember deciding to stay away from such
> analyzers on a machine I was not prepared to format.
> This would be very unlikely to apply to you, including the fact that
> your Money 2006 install was very fresh.

I remeber something like this coming up once. I declined because of the
potential for issues like this.

#15 07-09-2005, 05:43 PM

In microsoft.public.money, Dick Watson wrote:

- quote -

> 6:24 was the test cycle with my real data file in M04 in my production
> environment.

Thanks. I got confused somehow thinking they were sample/sample.

That real file performance is unusable, and the performance on the
sample did not seem good either.

This is a long shot: I had once linked some MS analyzer program into
Money. I think it was aimed at developers to see how well a program
they were developing conformed to XP standards or some such. It
added instrumentation code. Money crawled. (This might have been
circa 2003, maybe before). Uninstalling the analyzer did not get
Money back to normal.

I forget what the fix was-- maybe reinstalling Money after
uninstalling the analyzer. Maybe I restored a disk image. Maybe I
reinstalled Windows. I just remember deciding to stay away from such
analyzers on a machine I was not prepared to format.

This would be very unlikely to apply to you, including the fact that
your Money 2006 install was very fresh.

#14 07-09-2005, 04:47 PM

6:24 was the test cycle with my real data file in M04 in my production
environment. It compares to the 39+ minutes for the same exercise (give or
take as noted previously) with the same data (excepting the last three days
worth of transactions) in M06 on the laptop.

2:33 was the test cycle in M06 on the laptop with the sample data file. It
contrasts with the 39 minutes doing the same steps but using a real data
file with lots of real data.

Clearly if you want M06 (and most other versions, I suspect) to look fast
you will just play with the sample data file, not actually put lots of real
data in your own file. Maybe this is how they arrive at the system
requirements?

"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup[at]please.tnx> wrote in message
news:lisvc157migcifqn7vb4fjhg6303b36q2v[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> (6:24/2:33) = (384 seconds/153 seconds)=2.51

#13 07-09-2005, 03:55 PM

In microsoft.public.money, Dick Watson wrote:

- quote -

> Per request, I re-ran the test cycle on the laptop. I timed it with my
> watch. 2:33 to do the test cycle with the sample file. That's 36+ minutes
> less than the run with my real data file.
> To get some rough idea how M06 relates to M04 in my environment, I ran the
> cycle on the M04 production machine. (2.2 GHz P4, 1GB PC2700, ATA-100 RAID0
> on Seagate Barracuda IV.) I didn't make any concessions to the test
> environment. Seti (BOINC) was still running the whole time. Full register
> feedback was enabled--though it never had time to draw. The test cycle took
> 6:24. That included a backup to one of my servers over the net at the end
> and I had to say no, I didn't want to back up to floppies. The CPU time
> accumulated by Money was almost exactly 5:00 when it exited task manager.
> Money never topped 46MB memory footprint.

(6:24/2:33) = (384 seconds/153 seconds)=2.51

- quote -

> How should I normalize this to M06 on the laptop? Let's entirely arbitrarily
> assume the desktop is 5x faster than the desktop. (I'd bet that's
> pessimistically in the ballpark.) That'd still put M04 at 33 minutes or so
> for the test cycle on the laptop. That's 20% or so faster than M06.

#12 07-09-2005, 02:00 PM

And the reward I got from collecting this data is that the test point
scheduled payment I edited for the test morphed to a Paycheck in the
process. Now I gotta fix that...

#11 07-09-2005, 01:54 PM

Sorry it took so long to get back on this. I was at work four hours late
last night trying to get a release CD kicked out the door. (Arrgh, Almost
But Not Quite Yet, One More Thing To Fix.)

Per request, I re-ran the test cycle on the laptop. I timed it with my
watch. 2:33 to do the test cycle with the sample file. That's 36+ minutes
less than the run with my real data file.

To get some rough idea how M06 relates to M04 in my environment, I ran the
cycle on the M04 production machine. (2.2 GHz P4, 1GB PC2700, ATA-100 RAID0
on Seagate Barracuda IV.) I didn't make any concessions to the test
environment. Seti (BOINC) was still running the whole time. Full register
feedback was enabled--though it never had time to draw. The test cycle took
6:24. That included a backup to one of my servers over the net at the end
and I had to say no, I didn't want to back up to floppies. The CPU time
accumulated by Money was almost exactly 5:00 when it exited task manager.
Money never topped 46MB memory footprint.

How should I normalize this to M06 on the laptop? Let's entirely arbitrarily
assume the desktop is 5x faster than the desktop. (I'd bet that's
pessimistically in the ballpark.) That'd still put M04 at 33 minutes or so
for the test cycle on the laptop. That's 20% or so faster than M06.

So, in incredibly crude terms, M06 takes 33% more memory than M04 and
returns optimistically 20% less performance than M04 in my environment with
my data. Not very impressive at all. Embarrassing, really.

"Mark" <abcd[at]abcd.com> wrote in message
news:42ce9ce2$1[at]news.microsoft.com...
- quote -

> I thought you'd mentioned previously that the Sample file performed
> faster.
> If you walked through this same scenario using the Sample file, is
> performance similar?

#10 07-09-2005, 01:15 AM

Yeah, but it's conceivable that there's something particular about Dick's
file that causes the slowdown and it's easier to diagnose if he trys it on a
file that we all have.

FWIW, I find 06 to be about the same speed as 05, but I have heaps of RAM
and processor. Even so, when I load 03 on this machine, I find it unusably
slow.

--

"Chris Cowles" <NoSpam[at]For.me> wrote in message
news:OqrkQ4AhFHA.3480[at]TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> But is the sample file a real world example? I'd guess that Dick's is more
> representative of what a user would actually have.
> --
> Chris Cowles
> Gainesville, FL
> "Mark" <abcd[at]abcd.com> wrote in message
> news:42ce9ce2$1[at]news.microsoft.com...
> > I thought you'd mentioned previously that the Sample file performed
> > faster.
> > If you walked through this same scenario using the Sample file, is
> > performance similar?

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How much initial price history? BruceK: I've recently rebuilt my money file to resolve sync problems. When each investment was added, the price updates were limited to 6 months of history...	Microsoft Money	4	02-11-2005 04:49 PM
Re: Can't complete initial money 2005 update Cal Learner-- MVP: In microsoft.public.money, Perx wrote: >Everytime I start Money 2005 I'm prompted to download the >new update. I indicate to proceed, and it...	Microsoft Money	4	09-24-2004 09:53 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode