GOOD LUCK


"Bob Peel MVP" <Bob_Peel[at]kiandraNOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ojdk#A0oFHA.1464[at]TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
- quote -

On 2005-08-17, Bob Peel MVP <Bob_Peel[at]kiandraNOSPAM.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
- quote -

I don't think that's the case. When I import an OFX file from my
bank directly into M03, Microsoft isn't involved at all. M03 simply
refuses to import that file. I don't see how a fix to M05 or
M06 could have caused this interaction to break. Additionally, I
don't think this was accidental because the license agreement the
explicitly states that downloads are going to "expire". And low
and behold, they did.

The fact that this is in the license agreement means that I have no
complaint that will be upheld by any sort of court. It's certainly
not illegal and any civil complaint will (correctly) fall on
deaf ears.

But it's still a sleazy thing for MS to have done. They
intentionally broke working software even though that software's
continuing to work wouldn't impact them.

Putting 2 & 2 together and reading between the lines, I think MS had a
problem with M2005 or M2006 that in the course of fixing broke downloads to
earlier versions. As these earlier versions were out of support.......

--
Regards
Bob Peel,
Microsoft MVP - Money

For UK tips & fixes see
http://support.microsoft.com/default...d=fh;EN-GB;mny.
For wishes or suggestions see
http://register.microsoft.com/mswish/suggestion.asp
or for UK wishes http://www.microsoft.com/uk/support/money/feedback

I do not respond to any emails that I have not specifically asked for.

"Mark Horn" <mark[at]hornclan.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg5r4m.ts.mark[at]home.hornclan.com...
- quote -

On 2005-08-17, Dick Watson <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:
- quote -

LOL! If the answer was anything greater than zero, I think I'd probably
have to start seriously worrying the end of the world.

As for it breaking transaction downloads and not breaking manual entry,
you'd probably be able to guess how many tears I shed over that.

This was directed my way?

You have a point. When I get back in the FAQ editing business, I'll try to
remember to edit that answer. (Things are hectic now in part because my
laptop's hard disk turned toes up on a recent trip. It WAS my web
development database/testbed.)

I don't know what the driver is for Microsoft to obsolete the older versions
OFX/OFC stuff out-of-service. I'd bet one issue is helping weed the world of
obsolete interfaces (read: OFC and, probably sooner or later, OFX) is one of
them. Surely making it a forcing function to weed out old (read:
non-revenue-generating) copies of Money is another.

"Mark Horn" <mark[at]hornclan.com> wrote in message
news:slrndg5r4m.ts.mark[at]home.hornclan.com...
- quote -

On 2005-08-16, Dick Watson <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:
- quote -

In this FAQ entry, what services are you thinking of when you say this:

Many of us always figured there was an implicit date beyond
which Microsoft was not going to provide services that cost
them money to provide on legacy interfaces that cost them
money to maintain in exchange for the same $10 we paid for
the software way back when.

I know that MSN provides quotes. But Microsoft is doing more than
just shutting down access to the quotes. They're also shutting
down a service that doesn't cost them anything. To wit: when I
download OFX transactions from my bank's website, and import that
file into Money, Microsoft is not involved at all. I do not send
one bit to Microsoft. I don't send use a single CPU resource of
theirs to do this. I use my bank's bandwidth and web page and my
own network and CPU.

Yet, Microsoft decided to stop supporting any OFX transaction loads
after a specific date. It doesn't cost them any more to support
the interactions between a bank and it's customers than it does
to support manual transaction entry after that date. And yet they
don't turn off manual transaction entry after 2 years. What they've
done is (IMHO) roughly equivalent shutting off cash flow after a
certain time frame, and then using the excuse that it costs them
extra money to continue to support it.

I'm not so sanguine about Microsoft's intentions here. I think
this is a crappy move. If they want to just stop paying to
support something, I've got no problem with that. But when they
actively break something that's working, and it doesn't cost them
anything to allow to continue to work, that's crossing the line
from self-protection to nasty.

</complain

See http://umpmfaq.info/faqdb.php?q=120. It may be this "feature".

"bondguy" <bondguy[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3593F4BC-3294-472E-88E4-9591A1352690[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

I started using 2003 about a year ago and everything worked fine. A few
weeks ago I noticed that my portfolios were not updating, although I would
get an "update complete." Has anyone experienced this problem and is there a
work around.