Best (least screwed up) version of Money?

Is there a consensus as to which of the recent version of Money is the least
screwed up? I've upgraded every year, including this year to Money 2006,
but I'm not a happy camper. In particular, the automatic download and so on
from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I replace IE6
with the Beta version of IE7?), and the process for downloading stuff from
the local back is kind of backwards.

I was thinking of dropping back to one of the previous versions of Money but
I'm not sure which one should be the target year? I have original disks for
2004 and 2005, and maybe, deep in the archives, previous versions.

So, if I'm interested in having the least trouble with Money, which of the
versions should I be using?

Or should I try, once again, to switch back to Quicken?

Thanks for the advice--

Cal
Sun Apr 16 00:09:37 CDT 2006

In microsoft.public.money, DietRite wrote:

>Is there a consensus as to which of the recent version of Money is the least
>screwed up? I've upgraded every year, including this year to Money 2006,
>but I'm not a happy camper. In particular, the automatic download and so on
>from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I replace IE6
>with the Beta version of IE7?)

It definitely could be the IE7 beta. It is known to not work
properly with Money.

Dick
Sun Apr 16 07:53:01 CDT 2006

2004 would be my choice. IE7 has bad karma with lots of stuff at Fidelity in
my experience.

"DietRite" <lowboy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eV0OrNRYGHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Is there a consensus as to which of the recent version of Money is the
> least screwed up? I've upgraded every year, including this year to Money
> 2006, but I'm not a happy camper. In particular, the automatic download
> and so on from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I
> replace IE6 with the Beta version of IE7?), and the process for
> downloading stuff from the local back is kind of backwards.
>
> I was thinking of dropping back to one of the previous versions of Money
> but I'm not sure which one should be the target year? I have original
> disks for 2004 and 2005, and maybe, deep in the archives, previous
> versions.
>
> So, if I'm interested in having the least trouble with Money, which of the
> versions should I be using?
>
> Or should I try, once again, to switch back to Quicken?
>
> Thanks for the advice--
>
>
>

DietRite
Tue Apr 18 04:49:37 CDT 2006

Can I fall back to 2004 through the QIF export? Loose would be best, yes,
cause it carries all memos etc?



"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko@mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:%236rA3TVYGHA.3604@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 2004 would be my choice. IE7 has bad karma with lots of stuff at Fidelity
> in my experience.
>
> "DietRite" <lowboy@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:eV0OrNRYGHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Is there a consensus as to which of the recent version of Money is the
>> least screwed up? I've upgraded every year, including this year to Money
>> 2006, but I'm not a happy camper. In particular, the automatic download
>> and so on from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I
>> replace IE6 with the Beta version of IE7?), and the process for
>> downloading stuff from the local back is kind of backwards.
>>
>> I was thinking of dropping back to one of the previous versions of Money
>> but I'm not sure which one should be the target year? I have original
>> disks for 2004 and 2005, and maybe, deep in the archives, previous
>> versions.
>>
>> So, if I'm interested in having the least trouble with Money, which of
>> the versions should I be using?
>>
>> Or should I try, once again, to switch back to Quicken?
>>
>> Thanks for the advice--
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Dick
Tue Apr 18 07:12:27 CDT 2006

There are lots of limitations. No scheduled items, loan accounts, payee
details, DRP, BP, LP, or account details transfer using QIF--to name jus the
short list that comes immediately to mind.

"DietRite" <lowboy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DNOdnVGxF9WvK9nZRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> Can I fall back to 2004 through the QIF export? Loose would be best, yes,
> cause it carries all memos etc?

-
Mon Apr 17 11:44:24 CDT 2006


"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup@please.tnx> wrote in message
news:1bk342hhha5ea3n3kcne22o7orqkqfq3mq@4ax.com...
> In microsoft.public.money, DietRite wrote:
>>Is there a consensus as to which of the recent version of Money is the
>>least
>>screwed up? I've upgraded every year, including this year to Money
>>2006,
>>but I'm not a happy camper. In particular, the automatic download and
>>so on
>>from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I replace
>>IE6
>>with the Beta version of IE7?)

Before installing M2005,2006 , did you make a copy of your previous
version's .mny file ?
The new Money app does make a backup copy , but do you have same PC ? Or
is 2004 datafile long gone ?
Could you reload M2004 and open the data file from M2004 or do only have
the latest data file ( which gets munged each year)?

arthur
Tue Apr 18 12:44:26 CDT 2006

I use IE as little as possible. Do you have a must have reason for
IE7?
arthur
==
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:14:13 -0500, "DietRite" <lowboy@comcast.net>
wrote:
>from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I replace IE6
>with the Beta version of IE7?), and the process for downloading stuff from
>the local back is kind of backwards.
>

-
Mon Apr 17 13:09:15 CDT 2006

> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:14:13 -0500, "DietRite" <lowboy@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>>from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I replace
>>IE6
>>with the Beta version of IE7?), and the process for downloading stuff
>>from
>>the local back is kind of backwards.
>>

"arthur" <trash.all.spam@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:e69a421r1v2d267ug861i4cu6lnsaf2iq1@4ax.com...
>I use IE as little as possible. Do you have a must have reason for
> IE7?
> arthur

and if you don't need it and are looking for a reason to NOT try IE7,
try the
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general newsgroup - you'll see lots of
reasons to NOT use it.
Maybe wait for IE7 sp1,sp2 ...

bobb

Bob
Tue Apr 18 15:40:21 CDT 2006

IE7 isn't even on general release - it is still beta. Which says be prepared
for all sorts of weird happenings and be prepared to reformat your hard disk
and start over! :-(

--
Regards
Bob Peel,
Microsoft MVP - Money

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


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

"- Bobb -" <bobb@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:%23IX72MxYGHA.1580@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:14:13 -0500, "DietRite" <lowboy@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>from Fidelity isn't working any longer (could it be because I replace IE6
>>>with the Beta version of IE7?), and the process for downloading stuff
>>>from
>>>the local back is kind of backwards.
>>>
>
> "arthur" <trash.all.spam@xoxy.net> wrote in message
> news:e69a421r1v2d267ug861i4cu6lnsaf2iq1@4ax.com...
>>I use IE as little as possible. Do you have a must have reason for
>> IE7?
>> arthur
>
> and if you don't need it and are looking for a reason to NOT try IE7, try
> the
> microsoft.public.internetexplorer.general newsgroup - you'll see lots of
> reasons to NOT use it.
> Maybe wait for IE7 sp1,sp2 ...
>
> bobb
>
>

arthur
Tue Apr 18 16:32:47 CDT 2006

I assume you mean that uninstalling it is impossible. Unlike normal
operating systems, Windouch and IE are joined at the spinal cord.

A little OT, but on a recent shopping mall trip I happened upon an
AAPL retail store and it was one of the most crowded shops of its
size.

arthur
==

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:40:21 +0100, "Bob Peel, MVP" <bob_peel@NO
SPAM.kiandra.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>IE7 isn't even on general release - it is still beta. Which says be prepared
>for all sorts of weird happenings and be prepared to reformat your hard disk
>and start over! :-(

DietRite
Tue Apr 18 23:31:57 CDT 2006

Thanks. I already uninstalled IE7 Beta 2 which automatically reinstalls
IE6, and I have no problems with downloading stuff now. So I'm sticking with
Money 2006 (or I'm switching to Quicken, which I actually think I prefer for
it's relative simplicity).

Thanks to all.

TopPosted

"arthur" <trash.all.spam@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:39ma421rr6qfk7b0ov58p8ffci2ts1m382@4ax.com...
>I assume you mean that uninstalling it is impossible. Unlike normal
> operating systems, Windouch and IE are joined at the spinal cord.
>
> A little OT, but on a recent shopping mall trip I happened upon an
> AAPL retail store and it was one of the most crowded shops of its
> size.
>
> arthur
> ==
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:40:21 +0100, "Bob Peel, MVP" <bob_peel@NO
> SPAM.kiandra.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>IE7 isn't even on general release - it is still beta. Which says be
>>prepared
>>for all sorts of weird happenings and be prepared to reformat your hard
>>disk
>>and start over! :-(

Bob
Wed Apr 19 01:53:43 CDT 2006

Uninstalling is, in theory, possible but I am always wary of the debris that
gets left behind in the registry. Also MS do issue very strong warnings when
you join any beta to the effect that "don't use on a live system; results
are unpredictable and be prepared to reformat and reinstall the O/S"

--
Regards
Bob Peel,
Microsoft MVP - Money

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


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

"arthur" <trash.all.spam@xoxy.net> wrote in message
news:39ma421rr6qfk7b0ov58p8ffci2ts1m382@4ax.com...
>I assume you mean that uninstalling it is impossible. Unlike normal
> operating systems, Windouch and IE are joined at the spinal cord.
>
> A little OT, but on a recent shopping mall trip I happened upon an
> AAPL retail store and it was one of the most crowded shops of its
> size.
>
> arthur
> ==
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:40:21 +0100, "Bob Peel, MVP" <bob_peel@NO
> SPAM.kiandra.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>IE7 isn't even on general release - it is still beta. Which says be
>>prepared
>>for all sorts of weird happenings and be prepared to reformat your hard
>>disk
>>and start over! :-(

-
Wed Apr 19 09:09:27 CDT 2006

"DietRite" if you're still out there - what version of Quicken did you
like?
I tried a few of them and I didn't like the look and feel. Friends
family agreed. Over time we all ended up with Money. In Quicken my
biggest complaint was that everything "opened in a new window" rather
than the back/forth moving in Money. If I opened my checking account in
Quicken it was a window - my brokerage opened in another window (over
the first so I didn't realize it until I noticed at bottom of screen all
the windows I had opened) . It's been a few years now but I think that I
had to keep going to the main menu. I do remember when I went to close
that one session I must have had 15-20 windows open.

Bobb



"DietRite" <lowboy@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u2l1so2YGHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Thanks. I already uninstalled IE7 Beta 2 which automatically
> reinstalls IE6, and I have no problems with downloading stuff now. So
> I'm sticking with Money 2006 (or I'm switching to Quicken, which I
> actually think I prefer for it's relative simplicity).
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> TopPosted
>
> "arthur" <trash.all.spam@xoxy.net> wrote in message
> news:39ma421rr6qfk7b0ov58p8ffci2ts1m382@4ax.com...
>>I assume you mean that uninstalling it is impossible. Unlike normal
>> operating systems, Windouch and IE are joined at the spinal cord.
>>
>> A little OT, but on a recent shopping mall trip I happened upon an
>> AAPL retail store and it was one of the most crowded shops of its
>> size.
>>
>> arthur
>> ==
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 21:40:21 +0100, "Bob Peel, MVP" <bob_peel@NO
>> SPAM.kiandra.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>IE7 isn't even on general release - it is still beta. Which says be
>>>prepared
>>>for all sorts of weird happenings and be prepared to reformat your
>>>hard disk
>>>and start over! :-(
>
>

arthur
Wed Apr 19 14:27:22 CDT 2006

Who reads the skinny?
And if they do, believe it means what it says?
Caution, hot coffee may be hot.

arthur
==

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 07:53:43 +0100, "Bob Peel, MVP" <bob_peel@NO
SPAM.kiandra.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Uninstalling is, in theory, possible but I am always wary of the debris that
>gets left behind in the registry. Also MS do issue very strong warnings when
>you join any beta to the effect that "don't use on a live system; results
>are unpredictable and be prepared to reformat and reinstall the O/S"