My thoughts on Money

#19 04-27-2006, 08:18 AM

Admitedly an unknown amount of work. An application written as a
single thread design may, or as you say, may not require extensive
work.

Many applications lose their design and implementation team and the
product is turned over to a maintenance crew who has to learn the
application. IOW the development effort may or may not cease. I
think it has ceased for Money.

Suffice to say it will cost and as we all have seen, Money does not
change in any meaningful way over the past 3 yrs that I have used it.
ie M06 did not have major improvements that I can see or use. It is
still is extremely weak for working with investments.

" What would you like to fix in Money? " That says it all Dick.

arthur
==

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 16:11:54 -0600, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:
- quote -

> BTW, nothing I wrote was meant to suggest otherwise. My only point was that
> it was quite unlikely to require the "entire rewrite" you spoke of.

#18 04-26-2006, 10:11 PM

BTW, nothing I wrote was meant to suggest otherwise. My only point was that
it was quite unlikely to require the "entire rewrite" you spoke of.

"arthur" <trash.all.spam[at]xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:sllv42lp95060s59bb5fh24aaol11qdn5h[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> it is currently not capable of
> multitasking and that programming and perhaps design changes would be
> necessary and that means spending dollars and so the marketing types
> will ask how many more customers will we attract by spending a million
> or so?

#17 04-26-2006, 10:04 PM

There is a lot in your post that is wrong or not relevant to what the OP was
looking for in the first place. But I'll leave it be.

"arthur" <trash.all.spam[at]xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:sllv42lp95060s59bb5fh24aaol11qdn5h[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> Every application program (permit me to exclude the truely trivial)
> must use the platform it will run on. The operating system provides
> the interfaces to the hardware the operating system controls. Try
> running an application written to run in Linux on Windows as an absurd
> example. IE is now so much a part of the Windows system that using
> pieces of it does not make one's application 'reenterant' or much less
> 'reusable'. The application must be either in order to be able to run
> more than one copy of the data. For example, if the running
> application dynamically changes the same Registry variable then it
> should be obvious that it can not multitask. The Registry is, by the
> way, a terrible Windows design element. One could have some sort of
> 'semaphore' I suppose ... I could go on and on but I do not know the
> internals of Money except that it is currently not capable of
> multitasking and that programming and perhaps design changes would be
> necessary and that means spending dollars and so the marketing types
> will ask how many more customers will we attract by spending a million
> or so? It would not entice me to buy or not buy it.

#16 04-26-2006, 08:46 PM

Every application program (permit me to exclude the truely trivial)
must use the platform it will run on. The operating system provides
the interfaces to the hardware the operating system controls. Try
running an application written to run in Linux on Windows as an absurd
example. IE is now so much a part of the Windows system that using
pieces of it does not make one's application 'reenterant' or much less
'reusable'. The application must be either in order to be able to run
more than one copy of the data. For example, if the running
application dynamically changes the same Registry variable then it
should be obvious that it can not multitask. The Registry is, by the
way, a terrible Windows design element. One could have some sort of
'semaphore' I suppose ... I could go on and on but I do not know the
internals of Money except that it is currently not capable of
multitasking and that programming and perhaps design changes would be
necessary and that means spending dollars and so the marketing types
will ask how many more customers will we attract by spending a million
or so? It would not entice me to buy or not buy it.

arthur
==

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:23:39 -0600, "Dick Watson"
<littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote:

- quote -

> In that it's built on IE and MSIAM (a Jet relative) and I can have multiple
> IE windows and Access databases open at once, I'm betting it wouldn't be
> that hard if they wanted to and put their pointy little heads to it.
> "arthur" <trash.all.spam[at]xoxy.net> wrote in message
> news:ipat42da4f2t1p4k211buccij95vdg4uf1[at]4ax.com...
> > Not capable of multitasking is what you mean.
> > I suspect that would require an entire rewrite of the code so you can
> > forget that will ever happen.

#15 04-26-2006, 03:23 AM

In that it's built on IE and MSIAM (a Jet relative) and I can have multiple
IE windows and Access databases open at once, I'm betting it wouldn't be
that hard if they wanted to and put their pointy little heads to it.

"arthur" <trash.all.spam[at]xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:ipat42da4f2t1p4k211buccij95vdg4uf1[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> Not capable of multitasking is what you mean.
> I suspect that would require an entire rewrite of the code so you can
> forget that will ever happen.

#14 04-26-2006, 12:02 AM

Mark,

So far, Citibank, where I have my credit cards, still works fine for direct
downloads. Maybe MSFT can't push Citibank around. If they somehow disable
direct downloads I will manually download. I have to go to the Citicard
site anyway so manual downloads would not be much trouble. And I am willing
to go to a lot of trouble just to spite MSFT and their unreasonable new
policy to disable downloads to force upgrades. I realize that my little
crusade is of no consequence to MSFT but it makes me feel better.

Regards

Bill Wood

"Mark Horn" <mark[at]hornclan.com> wrote in message
news:slrne4t68b.3s2.mark[at]home.hornclan.com...
- quote -

> On 2006-04-25, William R Wood <secret[at]???.net> wrote:
> > Yes, M2002 still directly downloads my bank and credit card transactions
> > perfectly. MSFT cannot turn off my downloading capability ever as far as
> > I
> > know.
> Actually, they can - in collusion with your bank. I tried using
> M02 with one of my banks and it didn't work. I don't remember
> exactly what the files are, but there's a .bat file on the CD that
> makes a registry change. That change turns on debug output for the
> communication with the bank. When I ran that file and tried to do
> a transaction download, the OFX that M02 sent to the bank contained
> a version number. The reply that the bank sent back said something
> to the effect of, "Unsupported version - please upgrade."
> And M$ has some control here. They can not license download
> technology to the bank unless the bank enforces versioning. OTOH...
> > Even with banks that do not support OFX, I can still manually
> > download transactions from the bank's website which I don't mind at all.
> ...I'm pretty sure M$ can't prevent this.

#13 04-25-2006, 11:25 PM

Money is a mass-market program for a market that has no masses. Very few
people can balance their checkbook, never mind handle the financial rigor
imposed by Money. The real market is in upscale programs for special uses
like the new consumption smoothing software for retirement planning ($150 a
pop).
I assume MS throws some improvements into the pot each year just to keep the
product alive. Eventually they'll get the data storage and web service
pieces cleaned up and that will be the end of the CD/downloaded programs.
2005 must have been a jolt: having to fix an application that no one at
corporate liked yet its problems were causing numerous complaints that
damaged the brand.

"William R Wood" <secret[at]???.net> wrote in message
news:%23bjOUjKaGHA.1196[at]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
- quote -

> Yes, M2002 still directly downloads my bank and credit card transactions
> perfectly. MSFT cannot turn off my downloading capability ever as far as
> I know. Even with banks that do not support OFX, I can still manually
> download transactions from the bank's website which I don't mind at all.
> I simply refuse to pay MSFT for newer versions of Money that are no better
> than 2002. I have tested the trial version of every release since 2002
> and I found each of them less useful mainly because they improved nothing,
> deleted features I use every day, changed report logic against my
> interest, or changed the interface for no good reason, often making the
> function far more difficult to find and use.
> The real problem with personal finance software is that there is
> insufficient competition. Money v Quicken, that;s about it. Little
> outfits like Moneydance have some promise but so far no one has invested
> enough money in such a project to seriously threaten MSFT or Intuit.
> Neither MSFT nor Intuit intends to make their core program better. They
> are focused solely on milking customers for ongoing upgrade fees and
> seeking various forms of 3rd party revenue. And they will probably get
> away with that approach indefinitely because there is no real competition
> and nothing better to switch to.
> Me, I'm still sticking with M2002

> Regards
> Bill Wood
> "arthur" <trash.all.spam[at]xoxy.net> wrote in message
> news:36br42p669uubo7ro217ine93ebiec2els[at]4ax.com...
> > Does it accept OFX data downloads and does it connect to your
> > institution and auto download OFX files? Problem is that M02
> > can not know about changes or additions to the OFX data.
> > > arthur
> > ==
> > > On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:56:27 -0700, "William R Wood" <secret[at]???.net> > wrote:
> > > So I'm sticking with M2002

#12 04-25-2006, 11:08 PM

Not capable of multitasking is what you mean.
I suspect that would require an entire rewrite of the code so you can
forget that will ever happen.

arthur
==

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 04:29:26 GMT, "MH" <Nospam[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

> Nice summary. My complaint is that you cannot open more than one Money file
> at once as in 2 windows. You must first log out of file A and then log into
> file B.

#11 04-25-2006, 11:02 PM

Just for completeness, M03 had a 3yr death sentence.

As to additions to OFX, the code (program) should just ignore things
it does not understand therefore the old should still function to its
specs. Only if you respec'd the old would it break and that would be
not be an option.

arthur
==

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:42:47 +0100, "Bob Peel, MVP" <bob_peel[at]NO
SPAM.kiandra.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

- quote -

> MS only brought in the 2 year time out with M2004 (to come into line with
> Quicken!). It allegedly stops all downloads into Money, not just bank
> statements but also share prices.

#10 04-25-2006, 09:47 PM

On 2006-04-25, William R Wood <secret[at]???.net> wrote:
- quote -

> Yes, M2002 still directly downloads my bank and credit card transactions
> perfectly. MSFT cannot turn off my downloading capability ever as far as I
> know.

Actually, they can - in collusion with your bank. I tried using
M02 with one of my banks and it didn't work. I don't remember
exactly what the files are, but there's a .bat file on the CD that
makes a registry change. That change turns on debug output for the
communication with the bank. When I ran that file and tried to do
a transaction download, the OFX that M02 sent to the bank contained
a version number. The reply that the bank sent back said something
to the effect of, "Unsupported version - please upgrade."

And M$ has some control here. They can not license download
technology to the bank unless the bank enforces versioning. OTOH...

- quote -

> Even with banks that do not support OFX, I can still manually
> download transactions from the bank's website which I don't mind at all.

....I'm pretty sure M$ can't prevent this.

#9 04-25-2006, 09:02 PM

"Patrick" <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:357BD93F-B06B-4BF7-B675-FAA92D5100EE[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

> Being the 2006 version is the first verion I've ever used, I can't make
> any
> comparison to previous versions. And, I don't understand how you can
> still
> be using the 2002 version if you are literally forced to upgrade every two
> years.

I'm still using it because the automatic disabling of downloading feature
does not apply to M2002. MSFT didn't think that cute trick up until a
couple of years later.

- quote -

> This is fine - I can't expect my financial institutions to maintain
> backward
> compatibility forever.

Why not? My bank better do what I want or I will switch to a bank that
does. I want permanent downloading support for Money2002. So far every
bank I do business with gives me that support. How difficult is it for a
bank not to change their data delivery method?

Now if someone came up with a program that actually improved on M2002, I
would switch. But I don't see that happening. Basic accounting does not
change and I don't see a downloading problem developing for me or my banks
in my lifetime.

- quote -

> Aside from the online services, Money should continue
> to function.

Yes, that;s true but what good is M2006 if you cannot download transactions?
My wife runs up 4 page credit card bills every month. I'm sure not typing
all that into any program manually.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with your evaluation of 2006 - it is a
pretty good program. I am simply poking a jab at MSFT for their
non-friendly treatment of loyal customers. I resent the absurd hype I read
every year from MSFT about the great new features in Money. Those claims
are 90% baloney - what we get is maybe a bug fix or 2, more advertising
links and a few interface changes that don't help much, if at all. And to
top that off these new versions force folks to upgrade due to the loss of
downloading even if the new version is no better or even worse than what you
already have. Intuit is just as bad if not worse.

Regards

Bill Wood

#8 04-25-2006, 08:42 PM

Yes, M2002 still directly downloads my bank and credit card transactions
perfectly. MSFT cannot turn off my downloading capability ever as far as I
know. Even with banks that do not support OFX, I can still manually
download transactions from the bank's website which I don't mind at all. I
simply refuse to pay MSFT for newer versions of Money that are no better
than 2002. I have tested the trial version of every release since 2002 and
I found each of them less useful mainly because they improved nothing,
deleted features I use every day, changed report logic against my interest,
or changed the interface for no good reason, often making the function far
more difficult to find and use.

The real problem with personal finance software is that there is
insufficient competition. Money v Quicken, that;s about it. Little outfits
like Moneydance have some promise but so far no one has invested enough
money in such a project to seriously threaten MSFT or Intuit. Neither MSFT
nor Intuit intends to make their core program better. They are focused
solely on milking customers for ongoing upgrade fees and seeking various
forms of 3rd party revenue. And they will probably get away with that
approach indefinitely because there is no real competition and nothing
better to switch to.

Me, I'm still sticking with M2002

Regards

Bill Wood

"arthur" <trash.all.spam[at]xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:36br42p669uubo7ro217ine93ebiec2els[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

> Does it accept OFX data downloads and does it connect to your
> institution and auto download OFX files? Problem is that M02
> can not know about changes or additions to the OFX data.
> arthur
> ==
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:56:27 -0700, "William R Wood" <secret[at]???.net> wrote:
> > So I'm sticking with M2002

#7 04-25-2006, 01:42 PM

MS only brought in the 2 year time out with M2004 (to come into line with
Quicken!). It allegedly stops all downloads into Money, not just bank
statements but also share prices.

--
Regards
Bob Peel,
Microsoft MVP - Money

For UK tips & fixes see
http://support.microsoft.com/default...d=fh;EN-GB;mny.

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

"Patrick" <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:357BD93F-B06B-4BF7-B675-FAA92D5100EE[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

> Being the 2006 version is the first verion I've ever used, I can't make
> any
> comparison to previous versions. And, I don't understand how you can
> still
> be using the 2002 version if you are literally forced to upgrade every two
> years. From what I have seen, only online services stop after two years.
> This is fine - I can't expect my financial institutions to maintain
> backward
> compatibility forever. Aside from the online services, Money should
> continue
> to function.
> "William R Wood" wrote:
> > Nice write-up. I agree with almost all that you said. Money is a great
> > program.
> > > But you missed the major flaw in my opinion - Money has not improved in
> > a
> > material way since 2002.
> > > And the newer versions literally force you to upgrade every 2 years even
> > though the program will probably not be improved in any meaningful way
> > even
> > then. In fact, it might be worse.
> > > So I'm sticking with M2002

> > > > --
> > Regards,
> > > Bill Wood
> > Fountain Hills, AZ
> > > > > "Patrick" <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:BF9E661D-CAB4-46D9-8276-611C466A9614[at]microsoft.com...
> > > > > snip<
> > > > Would I choose Money again? Certainly.
> > >

#6 04-25-2006, 01:30 PM

Being the 2006 version is the first verion I've ever used, I can't make any
comparison to previous versions. And, I don't understand how you can still
be using the 2002 version if you are literally forced to upgrade every two
years. From what I have seen, only online services stop after two years.
This is fine - I can't expect my financial institutions to maintain backward
compatibility forever. Aside from the online services, Money should continue
to function.

"William R Wood" wrote:

- quote -

> Nice write-up. I agree with almost all that you said. Money is a great
> program.
> But you missed the major flaw in my opinion - Money has not improved in a
> material way since 2002.
> And the newer versions literally force you to upgrade every 2 years even
> though the program will probably not be improved in any meaningful way even
> then. In fact, it might be worse.
> So I'm sticking with M2002

> --
> Regards,
> Bill Wood
> Fountain Hills, AZ
> "Patrick" <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BF9E661D-CAB4-46D9-8276-611C466A9614[at]microsoft.com...
> > snip<
> Would I choose Money again? Certainly.

#5 04-25-2006, 01:24 PM

True... though napkins don't look too professional. :-)

"arthur" wrote:

- quote -

> If the checks can be understood I would not worry about it. As long
> as all the necessary elements are there, ie Bank, Pay to the order of,
> date, signature .... and away you go. Neatness does not count as
> long as it can be understood by a human.
> Legal checks can be written on a paper napkin.

> arthur
> ==
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:42:03 -0700, Patrick
> <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > -I want to start printing checks from Money too. I'm finding that the check
> > format (date is one like lower) seems to have changed between Money 2005 and
> > 2006. So finding alternative check vendors is difficult, since most supply
> > Money 2005 checks but not 2006.

#4 04-25-2006, 05:07 AM

Does it accept OFX data downloads and does it connect to your
institution and auto download OFX files? Problem is that M02
can not know about changes or additions to the OFX data.

arthur
==

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:56:27 -0700, "William R Wood" <secret[at]???.netwrote:
- quote -

> So I'm sticking with M2002

#3 04-25-2006, 04:29 AM

Nice summary. My complaint is that you cannot open more than one Money file
at once as in 2 windows. You must first log out of file A and then log into
file B.

"Patrick" <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF9E661D-CAB4-46D9-8276-611C466A9614[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

> After spending (too much) time researching different accounting packages,
I
> made the decision to purchase MS Money 2006 Small Business edition. I do
run
> a small business, hence the SB edition. I wanted a software package that
> would manage my business funds. The personal funds management is just a
nice
> plus. I have never before used Money or any other accounting software, so
I
> cannot make any comparisons. I can, however, write about what I think
about
> the software as a new, uncorrupted, and unspoiled user.
> Let me start by reiterating that I am a new user, so I maybe haven't seen
> all the bugs and problems that others have. My business is a *simple*
sole
> proprietorship with only one employee - me. I also only do banking - no
> investments, so I can't say anything about that part of the application.
I
> am not an accountant - I do simple stuff like writing checks and making
> deposits; that's about as deep as I go.
> Here's what I've experienced:
> -Look is nice and somewhat pleasing, though it can be a bit difficult to
> locate tools or options that you need.
> -All of my accounts were easy to set up. All but one account updates
online
> without a problem. The other account is a local bank that I can login to
and
> download a Money file to import.
> -Others complain about ads and sponsors. I do notice the links, and at
> first you aren't sure if the link is a tool or it's a sponsored link.
After
> a while though, it's not hard to pick out the sponsored links. I have
never
> seen any in-program ads like you'd see on a website, I've only seen
sponsored
> links. I do not find them to be overwhelming or disruptive. Personally,
it
> really doesn't bother me.
> -I've not yet experienced any data-related issues. No corruption, no
> misleading reports, no incorrect calculations. At times when reports have
> looked odd, it turned out to be either simple human error, or that I just
> didn't know where the data was coming from. I've always been able to
figure
> out any oddities, never had any real issues.
> -I do sync my accounts with my Pocket PC. Works nicely, not any problems
> there. Nice to be able to look at my accounts on the road.
> -Some people complain about the limitations on commingling funds in
business
> and personal accounts (converting business accounts to personal accounts,
for
> example). For me, this is a definite advantage - I want to keep my
business
> and personal accounts as separate as possible.
> -Budget planner seems nice, but I haven't found a lot of value in it. I'm
> paid on salary, so my paycheck is always the same. By taking a look at my
> 'Bills' section, I can pretty much know what my budget will look like.
> -Along with budget comes the cash flow forecast (I think that's what it's
> called). It took a bit of work with the budget, recurring payments &
income,
> and various options to get it to look somewhat realistic. Trend data
seems
> to mess things up a bit, though I have no suggestions on how to make it
> better.
> -It is nice to be able to design my own invoices. However, the interface
> seems a bit clunky and dated. Also, seems a bit limited in options.
> -Haven't done much with inventory tracking, since my business is mostly a
> 'service' business. But what I have done with it seems to work. Invoices
> deduct from quantity, you can manually adjust quantity, etc. It takes a
> little poking around to figure out exactly how things are working, but it
> does work.
> -Something I find missing that I truly wish Money permitted is the ability
> to attach images, documents and/or URLs to transactions. It would allow
me
> to attach receipts, vendor invoices, customer documents, or canceled
checks
> for easy retrieval, rather than having to dig through paper to find what
I'm
> looking for.
> -I want to start printing checks from Money too. I'm finding that the
check
> format (date is one like lower) seems to have changed between Money 2005
and
> 2006. So finding alternative check vendors is difficult, since most
supply
> Money 2005 checks but not 2006.
> -Would be nice if there were regular updates to Money as well. I have not
> been able to find any updates to the 2006 version. So, either there have
> been none, or they aren't easy to find. Either way, there's room for
> improvement.
> All-in-all I will say that I've had a very pleasant experience. Though
> there have been a few quirks (as with any application), they've been minor
> and non-disruptive. Would I choose Money again? Certainly.

#2 04-25-2006, 12:56 AM

Nice write-up. I agree with almost all that you said. Money is a great
program.

But you missed the major flaw in my opinion - Money has not improved in a
material way since 2002.

And the newer versions literally force you to upgrade every 2 years even
though the program will probably not be improved in any meaningful way even
then. In fact, it might be worse.

So I'm sticking with M2002

--
Regards,

Bill Wood
Fountain Hills, AZ

"Patrick" <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF9E661D-CAB4-46D9-8276-611C466A9614[at]microsoft.com...

- quote -

> snip<

Would I choose Money again? Certainly.

#1 04-24-2006, 09:32 PM

If the checks can be understood I would not worry about it. As long
as all the necessary elements are there, ie Bank, Pay to the order of,
date, signature .... and away you go. Neatness does not count as
long as it can be understood by a human.

Legal checks can be written on a paper napkin.

arthur
==

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:42:03 -0700, Patrick
<Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
- quote -

> -I want to start printing checks from Money too. I'm finding that the check
> format (date is one like lower) seems to have changed between Money 2005 and
> 2006. So finding alternative check vendors is difficult, since most supply
> Money 2005 checks but not 2006.

04-24-2006, 05:30 PM

Re updates. It is very rare for MS to issue updates mid-version. They had to
do this just after M2005 hit the streets but that was the exception.

--
Regards
Bob Peel,
Microsoft MVP - Money

For UK tips & fixes see
http://support.microsoft.com/default...d=fh;EN-GB;mny.

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

"Patrick" <Patrick[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BF9E661D-CAB4-46D9-8276-611C466A9614[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

> After spending (too much) time researching different accounting packages,
> I
> made the decision to purchase MS Money 2006 Small Business edition. I do
> run
> a small business, hence the SB edition. I wanted a software package that
> would manage my business funds. The personal funds management is just a
> nice
> plus. I have never before used Money or any other accounting software, so
> I
> cannot make any comparisons. I can, however, write about what I think
> about
> the software as a new, uncorrupted, and unspoiled user.
> Let me start by reiterating that I am a new user, so I maybe haven't seen
> all the bugs and problems that others have. My business is a *simple*
> sole
> proprietorship with only one employee - me. I also only do banking - no
> investments, so I can't say anything about that part of the application.
> I
> am not an accountant - I do simple stuff like writing checks and making
> deposits; that's about as deep as I go.
> Here's what I've experienced:
> -Look is nice and somewhat pleasing, though it can be a bit difficult to
> locate tools or options that you need.
> -All of my accounts were easy to set up. All but one account updates
> online
> without a problem. The other account is a local bank that I can login to
> and
> download a Money file to import.
> -Others complain about ads and sponsors. I do notice the links, and at
> first you aren't sure if the link is a tool or it's a sponsored link.
> After
> a while though, it's not hard to pick out the sponsored links. I have
> never
> seen any in-program ads like you'd see on a website, I've only seen
> sponsored
> links. I do not find them to be overwhelming or disruptive. Personally,
> it
> really doesn't bother me.
> -I've not yet experienced any data-related issues. No corruption, no
> misleading reports, no incorrect calculations. At times when reports have
> looked odd, it turned out to be either simple human error, or that I just
> didn't know where the data was coming from. I've always been able to
> figure
> out any oddities, never had any real issues.
> -I do sync my accounts with my Pocket PC. Works nicely, not any problems
> there. Nice to be able to look at my accounts on the road.
> -Some people complain about the limitations on commingling funds in
> business
> and personal accounts (converting business accounts to personal accounts,
> for
> example). For me, this is a definite advantage - I want to keep my
> business
> and personal accounts as separate as possible.
> -Budget planner seems nice, but I haven't found a lot of value in it. I'm
> paid on salary, so my paycheck is always the same. By taking a look at my
> 'Bills' section, I can pretty much know what my budget will look like.
> -Along with budget comes the cash flow forecast (I think that's what it's
> called). It took a bit of work with the budget, recurring payments &
> income,
> and various options to get it to look somewhat realistic. Trend data
> seems
> to mess things up a bit, though I have no suggestions on how to make it
> better.
> -It is nice to be able to design my own invoices. However, the interface
> seems a bit clunky and dated. Also, seems a bit limited in options.
> -Haven't done much with inventory tracking, since my business is mostly a
> 'service' business. But what I have done with it seems to work. Invoices
> deduct from quantity, you can manually adjust quantity, etc. It takes a
> little poking around to figure out exactly how things are working, but it
> does work.
> -Something I find missing that I truly wish Money permitted is the ability
> to attach images, documents and/or URLs to transactions. It would allow
> me
> to attach receipts, vendor invoices, customer documents, or canceled
> checks
> for easy retrieval, rather than having to dig through paper to find what
> I'm
> looking for.
> -I want to start printing checks from Money too. I'm finding that the
> check
> format (date is one like lower) seems to have changed between Money 2005
> and
> 2006. So finding alternative check vendors is difficult, since most
> supply
> Money 2005 checks but not 2006.
> -Would be nice if there were regular updates to Money as well. I have not
> been able to find any updates to the 2006 version. So, either there have
> been none, or they aren't easy to find. Either way, there's room for
> improvement.
> All-in-all I will say that I've had a very pleasant experience. Though
> there have been a few quirks (as with any application), they've been minor
> and non-disruptive. Would I choose Money again? Certainly.

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Money 2006 thoughts JohnA: Hi, I just installed Money 2006 from Price Costco upgrading from 2004 with no apparent problems. Here's some things I noticed: 1) Speed...	Microsoft Money	6	07-31-2005 03:47 AM
Thoughts on upgrading every two years David Arnstein: 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...	Microsoft Money	5	07-07-2005 05:55 PM
Your thoughts on Money 2005? Glenn B.: After reading through the posts today, here are some of my thoughts on Money 2005 and how to resolve some of the issues. #1 MS should offer a 15...	Microsoft Money	6	02-23-2005 04:50 PM
Microsoft Money Future Development, Any Thoughts? mak: I've been thinking about this for awhile now and wonder where this product will go from here. Dick Watson in one of his posts mentions that...	Microsoft Money	3	07-22-2003 08:53 PM

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