Most people who work in software engineering consider "bug" as a case where
the code doesn't work as intended or designed. There's no evidence that
Money is slow because it is not working as intended or designed. Why it
wasn't intended or designed to work faster and more responsively is another
subject, but likely is not the result of a bug.

"J Anderson" <anonymous[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:061701c3ff33$119ad2c0$3a01280a[at]phx.gbl...
- quote -

I am another user that thinks Money has some kind of a
bug preventing it from reacting quickly after entering
just about any transaction. (And I've applied all the
supposed "fixes" such as not using passport and turning
off feedback.) And it gets worse all the time. Entering
a simple check sometimes takes a minute or even longer to
get back control of the program. I am tired of
waiting...waiting...waiting all the time and probably
won't buy another version. I've had my problems with
Quicken, also, the latest that occured when the date
changed from 2003 to 2004. It must have been a bug, but
Quicken didn't admit it or give the simple fix. I took
two days recreating my files and a few weeks later found
the easy fix on the Quicken board from another user, not
from Quicken. So neither program or company is perfect,
but at least Quicken doesn't take forever to enter a
transaction and saves and shuts down quickly, too.

- quote -

Agreed. I'm running a 600Mhz CPU and have a 15MB file. Money is
perfectly usable, if occasionally a little sluggish. But it's nowhere
near as bad as RJH describes. Either he is exaggerating his response
times or there is a problem somewhere.

Cal Learner-- MVP wrote:
- quote -

It's awfully hard to objectively compare subjective impressions of
performance and responsiveness. (We all quote times, but how many of us have
ever whipped out a stopwatch or captured the video and counted frames?)

I'm running a 2.2 GHz P4 with 1GB of 266 DDR and a 2 disk (Seagate Barracuda
IV) Raid0 ATA-100 array. My file is 48+ MB.

Depending on conditions--mostly when I first start the app and first
navigate to a page and first select a transaction, I find the thing
annoyingly sluggish. If I'm just entering transactions serially, I can see
1-2 seconds of hourglass time per. 1-2 seconds is probably the norm for
entering a transaction from the bills & deposits, but measuring 5-10
probably wouldn't surprise me some times. (In fairness, I have not turned
off all of the feedback.) Entering Tax Estimator or BP is probably 15+
seconds. (And that's not counting the mandatory Previous|Next in Tax
Estimator to get the thing to render a readable screen.) But I can't
complain too much. When I was on my older Celeron 300/256MB machine, a file
upgrade from M02 to M03 took half an hour of hourglass/not responding time.
Transaction entry, will all of the feedback turned off, was a lot slower
than it is on the new machine with the feedback turned on.

As always, YMMV.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup[at]please.tnx> wrote in message
news:hdi430ds2mrhlhpvi4j1erhqrre6iuqle9[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, RJH wrote:

- quote -

No it is not. I am running 800 MHz with a lot less RAM. Entering a
transaction does not take several seconds. My file is 34,344,960
bytes.

See FAQ available at http://www.bollar.org/msmoney/ for some ways to
cut the time, but your file has a problem beyond what turning off
feedback etc will deal with. I don't know if there is a cure without
QIF export/import, but I hope so. I encourage you to contact
Microsoft to see if they can offer some help with your slow file.

"complaints about Quicken, read here performance" should read "complaints
about Quicken read here, performance"

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:uteyYdX9DHA.2432[at]TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
- quote -

Answers in order: Yes. Probably, sadly. Someone probably does; of all of the
complaints about Quicken, read here performance doesn't seem common.

BTW, there is nothing wrong, per se, with using 100% of the CPU. Think of
that as the most efficient use of the CPU. (You didn't buy the thing so it
would sit idle, did you?) What's wrong is using 100% of the CPU while
refusing to service the user. I think we'd all prefer Money to be snappy to
the user and average using 95% of the CPU than ignore the user at 100% CPU
usage some of the time and average only, say, 20% CPU usage over time. On my
desktop machine, SETI[at]home uses every available unused CPU cycle, leaving it
pegged at 100% CPU usage 100% of the time. The impact to usability is near
zero.

"RJH" <Bla[at]bla.net> wrote in message
newsvrYb.38334$hR.918434[at]bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
- quote -

I've been using Money since I can remember, it seems that every edition
becomes a little slower than the last. Money '04 is SLOW and getting
slower. Every transaction runs the processor to 100% (Kernel to 20-30%) for
at least 15 seconds. On open the processor runs to 100% for about 1 minute
30 seconds. It's virtually unusable for about 2 minutes on open. Closing
takes just as long. I've tried shutting down the Charts & Advisors and
such, but that doesn't help much. My file is about 20 meg. My machine has
plenty of RAM (1/2 a gig)and I'm running a 1.6mhz processor. Is this the
norm? Can we look forward to it getting even slower? Does anyone know if
Quicken is any better?

Thanks!

Bob Howard