Keeping M2004 - should I retain new copy of M2006?

#11 03-28-2006, 07:57 PM

WOW, thanks for all the feedback - I guess that's what I DIDN'T know.
To ME, $25M would justify the output - but it appears not to.

Bobb

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in message news:uLhV1ggUGHA.4892[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> One comment inline.
> "- Bobb -" <bobb[at]netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:uOu0NjfUGHA.5568[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I think that if they DID " a hugely compelling, feature rich, version that
> > added even half the things on your wish list, and then went and priced it
> > to hit a $109 price point at retail" , they'd sell quite a bit. I think
> > THAT's the market where the $$$ is. You're right - 100% of a market in
> > which people want to spend $10 per app isn't worth capturing, BUT 50% of
> > the market where people WILL pay is definitely worth chasing. Put in
> > "what-if' scenarios, much better reporting ,etc. Consider Quickbooks -
> > users definitely think the price is worth it - whether it's $200 or $799
> > for a 4 user license. They've reached the point where (within reason)
> > price doesn't matter.
> Well, maybe two comments: I suspect the price elasticity of demand for
> QuickBooks is much lower than for the personal product. If Microsoft did a
> suitable competitor they could sell it for half that, drag Intuit down to
> the same point, and not change the aggregate demand all that much. If you
> are running a small business, accounting is not optional. So, I think it's
> a bad comparison.
> As to how many $109 copies of "Money Advanced" they could sell, my time in
> the newsgroup and years as a computer user/geek/engineer convinces me that
> **maybe** 1/3 of the users who get here would really appreciate/use greatly
> increased capability/functionality. 2/3 are overwhelmed by what's there
> today. My assumption is that people who get here are, by virtue of getting
> here, already in the top 75th percentile or better of user-dom. So, maybe
> 1/3 of 25% is your best case of the user population who are actually
> receptive to and/or eager for such a version.
> I don't know how many Money users there are, but I have read estimates that
> maybe 20% or less of households with computers are actually using computers
> to "manage personal finances". Let's say that's 20% of 100 million. Let's
> say that half of those, in turn, "manage personal finances" using Quicken or
> Money. Now we are at 10 million households using Q or M. Let's assume that
> the market is 70% Q and 30% M (I've read numbers like that). Now we are down
> to 3 million households using Money. Let's assume that every one of my 1/3
> of 25% of those race right out and buy "Money Advanced". That's 250,000
> copies.
> If $100 of the $109 goes straight to the bottom line. that's $25M. Software
> Development costs on the order of $250/developer hour (really round numbers;
> you have to pay them, pay their benefits, put a roof over their heads,
> provide servers for their code, etc). That's enough to buy on the
> order--ignoring support costs and tech writers and advertising and so
> forth--of 100,000 hours. That's on the order of 50 developers for a year.
> I guess where I'm going with this is that I've diced and sliced this enough
> times in my head that I understand why they are where they are. The don't
> develop "Money Advanced" because there just isn't a business case to do so.
> Sad, I agree.

#10 03-28-2006, 01:37 AM

One comment inline.

"- Bobb -" <bobb[at]netscape.net> wrote in message
news:uOu0NjfUGHA.5568[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> I think that if they DID " a hugely compelling, feature rich, version that
> added even half the things on your wish list, and then went and priced it
> to hit a $109 price point at retail" , they'd sell quite a bit. I think
> THAT's the market where the $$$ is. You're right - 100% of a market in
> which people want to spend $10 per app isn't worth capturing, BUT 50% of
> the market where people WILL pay is definitely worth chasing. Put in
> "what-if' scenarios, much better reporting ,etc. Consider Quickbooks -
> users definitely think the price is worth it - whether it's $200 or $799
> for a 4 user license. They've reached the point where (within reason)
> price doesn't matter.

Well, maybe two comments: I suspect the price elasticity of demand for
QuickBooks is much lower than for the personal product. If Microsoft did a
suitable competitor they could sell it for half that, drag Intuit down to
the same point, and not change the aggregate demand all that much. If you
are running a small business, accounting is not optional. So, I think it's
a bad comparison.

As to how many $109 copies of "Money Advanced" they could sell, my time in
the newsgroup and years as a computer user/geek/engineer convinces me that
**maybe** 1/3 of the users who get here would really appreciate/use greatly
increased capability/functionality. 2/3 are overwhelmed by what's there
today. My assumption is that people who get here are, by virtue of getting
here, already in the top 75th percentile or better of user-dom. So, maybe
1/3 of 25% is your best case of the user population who are actually
receptive to and/or eager for such a version.

I don't know how many Money users there are, but I have read estimates that
maybe 20% or less of households with computers are actually using computers
to "manage personal finances". Let's say that's 20% of 100 million. Let's
say that half of those, in turn, "manage personal finances" using Quicken or
Money. Now we are at 10 million households using Q or M. Let's assume that
the market is 70% Q and 30% M (I've read numbers like that). Now we are down
to 3 million households using Money. Let's assume that every one of my 1/3
of 25% of those race right out and buy "Money Advanced". That's 250,000
copies.

If $100 of the $109 goes straight to the bottom line. that's $25M. Software
Development costs on the order of $250/developer hour (really round numbers;
you have to pay them, pay their benefits, put a roof over their heads,
provide servers for their code, etc). That's enough to buy on the
order--ignoring support costs and tech writers and advertising and so
forth--of 100,000 hours. That's on the order of 50 developers for a year.

I guess where I'm going with this is that I've diced and sliced this enough
times in my head that I understand why they are where they are. The don't
develop "Money Advanced" because there just isn't a business case to do so.
Sad, I agree.

#9 03-27-2006, 11:47 PM

Comments inline.

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in message news:eQ2decdUGHA.5108[at]TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

- quote -

> > > But they probably haven't made dime #1 on the application model they
> have today.
> > You don't think so ? - at $30 - $99 a copy (choice of version) ?
> > I think what they have was their version of Quicken.
> > They wanted to buy Intuit and it fell through - so they still have Money.
> > They haven't put much $$ into it since the buyout offer.
> No, I don't think so.
> First, they don't sell very many copies at $90 retail and, of those, they
> don't get the bulk of the $90 for any copy sold at retail by a third party.
> (Many of us have never paid more than $20 at retail.) Out of what they
> gross, they have to cover the cost of goods sold. The net then has to cover
> development, marketing, and--worst--support. Simple math with some knowledge
> of the cost of software development reveals that even one support call per
> license will put them upside down. Worse, most of the copies they "sell" are
> really the OEM licenses that they probabaly get maybe a few dollars for.
> Sure, these licenses incur (or are supposed to) no support costs and next to
> no cost of goods sold. But at $2 or $3 per, you've gotta sell a tens of
> millions of these before you can afford to write much software.

I never considered that - I've never seen an OEM Money.
On OEM PC's , I've only ever seen Quicken.
I always build my PC and I / my family/friends (with OEM Quicken) have bought Money at retail.

- quote -

> > > If they don't go to the services subscription model, they may just
> completely pull the plug on Money. They have already done so
> > > in most of the rest of the markets in the world they ever targeted with
> Money.
> > > If I had a reason to buy M2006 because it was BETTER, I would do so.
> Really. For most people I know, the cost is not the reason
> > for not upgrading - it's the lack of the new version " solving a problem".

> You'll get no argument about your premise as to why they don't upgrade it.
> But surely you see the vicious circle here: We don't buy the cheap
> non-upgrade, they don't make money; they don't make money, they can't make a
> business case for plowing money into more compelling upgrades.
> This is especially true when they see clearly that the proportion of users
> who want the "good" upgrades is small and the proportion of "might be users"
> who want dumbing down, or will cost them exponentially more in support of
> the fancier features, is large.
> And you can say cost is not the reason people don't upgrade, but I'll bet a
> fiver that if they did a hugely compelling, feature rich, version that added
> even half the things on my wish list, and then went and priced it to hit a
> $109 price point at retail, they'd get cruicified in the magazine reviews,
> the product would sell very few copies, and the theft rate would go up
> astronomically. They survey this stuff. They understand that price
> elasticity of demand for software targeted at home users is almost vertical.
> So we get dumbing-down, no new features that make the product more powerful,
> and ever more ads and sponsored links.

I think that if they DID " a hugely compelling, feature rich, version that added even half the things on your wish list, and then
went and priced it to hit a $109 price point at retail" , they'd sell quite a bit. I think THAT's the market where the $$$ is.
You're right - 100% of a market in which people want to spend $10 per app isn't worth capturing, BUT 50% of the market where
people WILL pay is definitely worth chasing. Put in "what-if' scenarios, much better reporting ,etc. Consider Quickbooks - users
definitely think the price is worth it - whether it's $200 or $799 for a 4 user license. They've reached the point where (within
reason) price doesn't matter.

- quote -

> > > > If you'd take Ellison over Gates, more power to you. I wouldn't. Not
> that either are gems....
> > > > True, I'd just do it since Ellison was the one with the idea ( for the
> NetPC) not Gates.
> Don't think for a milli-moment that the NetPC is a "consumer" or "user"
> friendly idea. They just want to put a meter on your keyboard and collect a
> fee per the keystroke. They want to revert to a "billable unit of computing" model that
existed when we handed punch cards through a window to an operator and

waited for the results of our job to print out on the teleprinter.
Exactly - and the printout is in a queue so - pick it up tomorrow.
Your PC then becomes a VT100.
I didn't say that I LIKED either option - just that I prefer to pay the person with the idea.
Ellison's idea was to make the internet available for cheap money to the masses ( and make $$ being an ISP)
Microsoft's view would NOT be "help the masses" - just to get the business from Oracle.

Smoking lamp is now out.

#8 03-27-2006, 10:09 PM

I agree with you that at the price I paid, net of rebate, they did not
make much, if any, money. However, they are also selling advertising
and I have no idea of that revenue stream from Mny. The reason de
existance IMO.

There is a booklet manual in the CD box never browsed. There were
advertising offers in the box. Box and ads went to the trash.

My only reason for moving from 03 to 06 was the threat of 03 ceasing
to support auto financial update this year and the price less the
rebate was bargain basement.

a
==

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:46:12 -0700, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:
- quote -

> No, I don't think so.

#7 03-27-2006, 07:46 PM

Comments inline.

"- Bobb -" <bobb[at]netscape.net> wrote in message
news:uLcsELcUGHA.736[at]TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> > But they probably haven't made dime #1 on the application model they
have today.
> You don't think so ? - at $30 - $99 a copy (choice of version) ?
> I think what they have was their version of Quicken.
> They wanted to buy Intuit and it fell through - so they still have Money.
> They haven't put much $$ into it since the buyout offer.

No, I don't think so.

First, they don't sell very many copies at $90 retail and, of those, they
don't get the bulk of the $90 for any copy sold at retail by a third party.
(Many of us have never paid more than $20 at retail.) Out of what they
gross, they have to cover the cost of goods sold. The net then has to cover
development, marketing, and--worst--support. Simple math with some knowledge
of the cost of software development reveals that even one support call per
license will put them upside down. Worse, most of the copies they "sell" are
really the OEM licenses that they probabaly get maybe a few dollars for.
Sure, these licenses incur (or are supposed to) no support costs and next to
no cost of goods sold. But at $2 or $3 per, you've gotta sell a tens of
millions of these before you can afford to write much software. So, for
years they've been looking for other ways to get some revenue. That's why
they add all the ads and links to things they can get a cut of. Yes, Money
was their hope to do what Intuit was doing. Yes, they tried but failed to
buy Intuit. And that's one of the reasons we see both of them today as
basically selling the applicaitons for just slightly more than free. And
that's why both of them are trying to leverage their access to your eyeballs
and your mouse and your financial data into ever more ways to make money as
a function of your being there, not as a function of selling you a CD in a
box.

- quote -

> > If they don't go to the services subscription model, they may just
completely pull the plug on Money. They have already done so
> > in most of the rest of the markets in the world they ever targeted with
Money.
> Even so, I would think that the US market can justify the product -
considering what they DON'T spend providing support on it.
> It comes out - if you don't like it - too bad. I think it doesn't sell
THAT well because the changes do not justify buying it
> every year. In fact often I like " the previous year's version ". I still
have a PC with M2001 on it because I like the look/feel
> of it rather than the later versions on my newer PC's.
> If I had a reason to buy M2006 because it was BETTER, I would do so.
Really. For most people I know, the cost is not the reason
> for not upgrading - it's the lack of the new version " solving a problem".

You'll get no argument about your premise as to why they don't upgrade it.
But surely you see the vicious circle here: We don't buy the cheap
non-upgrade, they don't make money; they don't make money, they can't make a
business case for plowing money into more compelling upgrades.

This is especially true when they see clearly that the proportion of users
who want the "good" upgrades is small and the proportion of "might be users"
who want dumbing down, or will cost them exponentially more in support of
the fancier features, is large.

And you can say cost is not the reason people don't upgrade, but I'll bet a
fiver that if they did a hugely compelling, feature rich, version that added
even half the things on my wish list, and then went and priced it to hit a
$109 price point at retail, they'd get cruicified in the magazine reviews,
the product would sell very few copies, and the theft rate would go up
astronomically. They survey this stuff. They understand that price
elasticity of demand for software targeted at home users is almost vertical.
So we get dumbing-down, no new features that make the product more powerful,
and ever more ads and sponsored links.

- quote -

> > If you'd take Ellison over Gates, more power to you. I wouldn't. Not
that either are gems....
> > True, I'd just do it since Ellison was the one with the idea ( for the
NetPC) not Gates.

Don't think for a milli-moment that the NetPC is a "consumer" or "user"
friendly idea. They just want to put a meter on your keyboard and collect a
fee per the keystroke. Then they don't have to do much of ANYTHING but sit
back and cash your checks. Many elements of Gates' model to this point have
amounted to or enabled user empowerment. Ellison--and many of Gates' current
protégés--don't want this at all. They just want more of your money for
doing less. They want to revert to a "billable unit of computing" model that
existed when we handed punch cards through a window to an operator and
waited for the results of our job to print out on the teleprinter.

#6 03-27-2006, 05:20 PM

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in message news:OxJI4IVUGHA.1444[at]TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> snipped<

> But they probably haven't made dime #1 on the application model they have today.

You don't think so ? - at $30 - $99 a copy (choice of version) ?
I think what they have was their version of Quicken.
They wanted to buy Intuit and it fell through - so they still have Money.
They haven't put much $$ into it since the buyout offer.

- quote -

> If they don't go to the services subscription model, they may just completely pull the plug on Money. They have already done so
> in most of the rest of the markets in the world they ever targeted with Money.

Even so, I would think that the US market can justify the product - considering what they DON'T spend providing support on it.
It comes out - if you don't like it - too bad. I think it doesn't sell THAT well because the changes do not justify buying it
every year. In fact often I like " the previous year's version ". I still have a PC with M2001 on it because I like the look/feel
of it rather than the later versions on my newer PC's.
If I had a reason to buy M2006 because it was BETTER, I would do so. Really. For most people I know, the cost is not the reason
for not upgrading - it's the lack of the new version " solving a problem".

- quote -

> If you'd take Ellison over Gates, more power to you. I wouldn't. Not that either are gems....

True, I'd just do it since Ellison was the one with the idea ( for the NetPC) not Gates. It always bothered me that Gates makes
all the money from copying others ideas and having a marketing gorilla that can stomp out any potential competitor. I know it
doesn't matter now that I bought Lotus 1-2-3 vs Excel or Wordperfect rather than Word, but I tried to reward 'the guy who had the
idea'.
That's a whole ' nother topic ... not today.

Bobb

- quote -

> "- Bobb -" <bobb[at]netscape.net> wrote in message news:u6K$RWUUGHA.4952[at]TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > You mean - you think M2006 + would only be available online ?
> > Don't you think they'd open themselves up to ... competition from anyone with a pc/ dumb terminal.
> > > Along that line:
> > I was reading last year or two about MS' big business plan is to get folks online and a subscription.
> > ( Like Oracle proposed a few years ago with NetPC) Do you think / know that that is in fact their plan ?
> > That's how things USED to be. Then PC's came along and did away with dumb terminals / workstations.
> > I can't see people doing so , having once had local control of apps (like now). Get on a plane and have no apps ? For
> > instance, I've been complaining that they can't update Money online quotes consistently - nevermind depending on them for my
> > entire application.
> > > Given only a choice of paying $5 to Oracle or $5 to Microsoft - I'd go with Oracle.

#5 03-27-2006, 05:50 AM

Not yet in India? Shame shame.

The question then is what will Q do? Were it not for options I would
not have switched and would certainly move back rather than the
alternative you envision. I can live without the nano brain MS
options support. My only excuse for Mny is the personal financial
bundling it provides ... nothing else. I can and do keep a monthly
spread sheet of net worth so that would suffice.

a
==

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:55:15 -0700, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:

- quote -

> service subscription model. Surely an online service would cost them
> less--since many or most support hassles would go away--and better enable
> them to "monetize the relationship" with ever more ads and targeted links

#4 03-27-2006, 03:55 AM

They have been making lots of noises for a long time about converting to a
service subscription model. Surely an online service would cost them
less--since many or most support hassles would go away--and better enable
them to "monetize the relationship" with ever more ads and targeted links
based on your data. The reason I think M08 would be a likely target is that
they have been on a three version major cycle for some time now. Only the
kind of resistance you note will prevent it. But they probably haven't made
dime #1 on the application model they have today. If they don't go to the
services subscription model, they may just completely pull the plug on
Money. They have already done so in most of the rest of the markets in the
world they ever targeted with Money.

If you'd take Ellison over Gates, more power to you. I wouldn't. Not that
either are gems....

"- Bobb -" <bobb[at]netscape.net> wrote in message
news:u6K$RWUUGHA.4952[at]TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> You mean - you think M2006 + would only be available online ?
> Don't you think they'd open themselves up to ... competition from anyone
> with a pc/ dumb terminal.
> Along that line:
> I was reading last year or two about MS' big business plan is to get folks
> online and a subscription.
> ( Like Oracle proposed a few years ago with NetPC) Do you think / know
> that that is in fact their plan ?
> That's how things USED to be. Then PC's came along and did away with dumb
> terminals / workstations.
> I can't see people doing so , having once had local control of apps (like
> now). Get on a plane and have no apps ? For instance, I've been
> complaining that they can't update Money online quotes consistently -
> nevermind depending on them for my entire application.
> Given only a choice of paying $5 to Oracle or $5 to Microsoft - I'd go
> with Oracle.

#3 03-27-2006, 03:49 AM

I know the CD is the cheapest part of the package so why not sell it
in a blister pack and save the printing cost of the box and book. They
are getting as marketing stupid as AOL.

a
==

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:44:11 -0700, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:

- quote -

> 07 MAY be better. It may also be the last locally installed Money
> application.

#2 03-27-2006, 02:24 AM

Dick,

You mean - you think M2006 + would only be available online ?
Don't you think they'd open themselves up to ... competition from anyone with a pc/ dumb terminal.

Along that line:
I was reading last year or two about MS' big business plan is to get folks online and a subscription.
( Like Oracle proposed a few years ago with NetPC) Do you think / know that that is in fact their plan ?
That's how things USED to be. Then PC's came along and did away with dumb terminals / workstations.
I can't see people doing so , having once had local control of apps (like now). Get on a plane and have no apps ? For instance,
I've been complaining that they can't update Money online quotes consistently - nevermind depending on them for my entire
application.

Given only a choice of paying $5 to Oracle or $5 to Microsoft - I'd go with Oracle.

bobb

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in message news:e2KZw$TUGHA.4340[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> 07 MAY be better. It may also be the last locally installed Money application

- quote -

> "Mcrutcher" <Mcrutcher[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:61B91FF4-7BCF-42E4-AA29-D2BA009F29A9[at]microsoft.com...
> > I have M2004 and love it. I purchased online a copy of M2006 (haven't
> > received it yet). I then downloaded the trial version of M2006. Well, can't
> > say that I'm impressed. M2006 is sooooooo slow. I also thought that I would
> > have more connectivity with some of my storebrand credit cards, but I now
> > realize that I have to use Moneycentral for that to work. Well, I don't want
> > my information stored online in one place like that. So, I reverted
> > successfully back to M2004 and uninstalled the trial M2006. My question is
> > this - sometime in 2007 Microsoft will stop supporting M2004 and I will no
> > longer have online updates with my banks (I think). As I understand it, I
> > will have to upgrade at that time to continue support. My question is will I
> > have to upgrade to the newest version at that time, or if I decided to keep
> > the M2006 hardcopy when I receive it, can I just install/upgrade to that
> > version when my M2004 support expires in 2007? If not, then I plan to
> > return the M2006 hardcopy.
> > > On a related note - I actually did try the Moneycentral online storage for
> > about 10 minutes and then decided I'd rather not have my information on MS's
> > servers. I checked the box in M2006 to stop using online
> > storage/Moneycentral, and then disabled Passport (all before reverting back
> > to M2004), but my information is still on the Moneycentral website when I
> > checked. How can I delete it from there?
> > > Thanks a bunch to anyone who replies.

#1 03-27-2006, 02:21 AM

Yeh but 06 will stop auto institutions download in 2 years from?
Until? Question is does he lose some time by not using it until the
04 stops. You understand legalese? 12 credits worth was no help to
me.

a
==

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 18:44:11 -0700, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:
- quote -

> 07 MAY be better. It may also be the last locally installed Money
> application.
> 06 will also work when 04 times out. See its EULA file for the details.

03-27-2006, 01:44 AM

07 MAY be better. It may also be the last locally installed Money
application.

06 will also work when 04 times out. See its EULA file for the details.

See also http://umpmfaq.info/faqdb.php?q=174 and
http://umpmfaq.info/Money2006.htm.

"Mcrutcher" <Mcrutcher[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:61B91FF4-7BCF-42E4-AA29-D2BA009F29A9[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

> I have M2004 and love it. I purchased online a copy of M2006 (haven't
> received it yet). I then downloaded the trial version of M2006. Well,
> can't
> say that I'm impressed. M2006 is sooooooo slow. I also thought that I
> would
> have more connectivity with some of my storebrand credit cards, but I now
> realize that I have to use Moneycentral for that to work. Well, I don't
> want
> my information stored online in one place like that. So, I reverted
> successfully back to M2004 and uninstalled the trial M2006. My question
> is
> this - sometime in 2007 Microsoft will stop supporting M2004 and I will no
> longer have online updates with my banks (I think). As I understand it, I
> will have to upgrade at that time to continue support. My question is
> will I
> have to upgrade to the newest version at that time, or if I decided to
> keep
> the M2006 hardcopy when I receive it, can I just install/upgrade to that
> version when my M2004 support expires in 2007? If not, then I plan to
> return the M2006 hardcopy.
> On a related note - I actually did try the Moneycentral online storage for
> about 10 minutes and then decided I'd rather not have my information on
> MS's
> servers. I checked the box in M2006 to stop using online
> storage/Moneycentral, and then disabled Passport (all before reverting
> back
> to M2004), but my information is still on the Moneycentral website when I
> checked. How can I delete it from there?
> Thanks a bunch to anyone who replies.

#-1 03-26-2006, 10:55 PM

I have M2004 and love it. I purchased online a copy of M2006 (haven't
received it yet). I then downloaded the trial version of M2006. Well, can't
say that I'm impressed. M2006 is sooooooo slow. I also thought that I would
have more connectivity with some of my storebrand credit cards, but I now
realize that I have to use Moneycentral for that to work. Well, I don't want
my information stored online in one place like that. So, I reverted
successfully back to M2004 and uninstalled the trial M2006. My question is
this - sometime in 2007 Microsoft will stop supporting M2004 and I will no
longer have online updates with my banks (I think). As I understand it, I
will have to upgrade at that time to continue support. My question is will I
have to upgrade to the newest version at that time, or if I decided to keep
the M2006 hardcopy when I receive it, can I just install/upgrade to that
version when my M2004 support expires in 2007? If not, then I plan to
return the M2006 hardcopy.

On a related note - I actually did try the Moneycentral online storage for
about 10 minutes and then decided I'd rather not have my information on MS's
servers. I checked the box in M2006 to stop using online
storage/Moneycentral, and then disabled Passport (all before reverting back
to M2004), but my information is still on the Moneycentral website when I
checked. How can I delete it from there?

Thanks a bunch to anyone who replies.

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Downgrading from M2006 to M2004 DietRite: I've been using 2006 for a while and it's fine, I guess. Other versions on other computers are still 2004. In order to pass files back and...	Microsoft Money	1	02-03-2006 11:24 AM
Frying upgradepan (M2004) to fire (M2006) Aloke Prasad: I installed Money 2006 over Money 2004. I didn't use Passport or MSN, just regular online downloads from my bank, credit card, and broker. Needless...	Microsoft Money	6	08-04-2005 01:46 AM
M2004 (No MSN, no Passport) -> M2006 Any problems? Aloke Prasad: I use M2004 without MSN, Passport or passwords. My financial institutions (Citi cards, Fidelity, Bank One) download into M2004 without any...	Microsoft Money	2	07-29-2005 08:43 PM
Start all over but retain emails, folders, contacts, etc. Dan Orth: Hi- I recently transfered my pst file over to a new computer (both Outlook 2003) and now I believe I have some (major?) problems with the...	Microsoft Money	1	08-03-2004 12:01 AM
Keeping track of paypal fees Dan Gray: I'm trying to figure out a way to track my paypal fees from our sales. I bought Money 2004 Small Business. Is there a step-by-step anywhere to...	Microsoft Money	2	10-30-2003 10:56 AM

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