MS Money 2006

It is interesting that the update is in the stores but there is no mention of
the 2006 version on the MS Money website. Must not be important to MSFT!

Does MS management ever pay any attention to this project team?

Dick
Sat Jul 02 17:52:24 CDT 2005

The reported release date is Tuesday, IIRC. In prior years, they've
struggled to get the Money website updated on the release day. As to your
second question, I suspect any attention they get has to do with the amount
of money they are losing.

"Bill Mac" <BillMac@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A0192D6-2582-428B-A1F5-5DB818CE59E6@microsoft.com...
> It is interesting that the update is in the stores but there is no mention
> of
> the 2006 version on the MS Money website. Must not be important to MSFT!
>
> Does MS management ever pay any attention to this project team?

StevenFromTexas
Sat Jul 02 23:17:19 CDT 2005

Oh, wow. A new "improved" version of Microsoft Money! I bet this year's
version destroys the Money data file on your computer, and then uploads all
of your data onto Microsoft's system into three "convenient" categories (MAY
BE INCOME, MAY BE AN EXPENSE, and We (Microsoft Programmers) Don't Have A
Clue How To Properly Categorize This Item, So We'll Put It In A New Category
Called DUMP FILE) . . . all, of course, to keep the product user from typing
anything at all in 2006. :(

I used to wonder if the people involved with Microsoft Money have degrees in
accounting or advertising. Sure don't wonder about that anymore. :(

Vadim
Mon Jul 04 11:18:29 CDT 2005

Hello StevenFromTexas,
You wrote in conference microsoft.public.money on Sat, 2 Jul 2005
22:17:19 -0600:

S> Oh, wow. A new "improved" version of Microsoft Money! I bet this
S> year's version

(follows the list of horrors)

not so. In fact, I think Money 2006 will be a very pleasant surprise for the
most users.


Vadim Rapp

Tom
Mon Jul 04 17:12:00 CDT 2005

Please keep us posted. I'm sitting this one out, though I would change my
mind and plunk down $60 if they've fixed some anoying glitches and usability
problems.

"Vadim Rapp" <vr@myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23MBJBQLgFHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello StevenFromTexas,
> You wrote in conference microsoft.public.money on Sat, 2 Jul 2005
> 22:17:19 -0600:
>
> S> Oh, wow. A new "improved" version of Microsoft Money! I bet this
> S> year's version
>
> (follows the list of horrors)
>
> not so. In fact, I think Money 2006 will be a very pleasant surprise for
> the most users.
>
>
> Vadim Rapp

Dick
Tue Jul 05 22:52:17 CDT 2005

Now that it's "on the street", do you care to elaborate?

"Vadim Rapp" <vr@myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23MBJBQLgFHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> not so. In fact, I think Money 2006 will be a very pleasant surprise for
> the most users.

Vadim
Wed Jul 06 09:02:48 CDT 2005

Hello Dick,

You wrote in conference microsoft.public.money on Tue, 5 Jul 2005
21:52:17 -0600:

DW> Now that it's "on the street", do you care to elaborate?

1. much faster than 2005. All those insane delays and nonresponsiveness on
every step are gone
2. The ability to skip a downloaded account during online setup is restored
3. It does much better job in matching downloaded transactions to the
scheduled bills. In previous releases, this ability was gradually
approaching zero, and in 2005 I was doing nearly all matching manually. Now
it's not 100% hit, but much, much better.

Not that there are no problems though. But to discuss those, I'd have to see
the release, which I don't have.


Vadim Rapp

Chris
Wed Jul 06 17:41:59 CDT 2005

Much faster? My 1 hour experience was that it's incredibly slower than 2004.

"Vadim Rapp" <vr@myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ehi%23gNjgFHA.3436@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hello Dick,
>
> You wrote in conference microsoft.public.money on Tue, 5 Jul 2005
> 21:52:17 -0600:
>
> DW> Now that it's "on the street", do you care to elaborate?
>
> 1. much faster than 2005. All those insane delays and nonresponsiveness on
> every step are gone

Dick
Wed Jul 06 18:56:41 CDT 2005

My very limited experience matches Chris Cowles' so far.

"Vadim Rapp" <vr@myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ehi%23gNjgFHA.3436@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> 1. much faster than 2005. All those insane delays and nonresponsiveness on
> every step are gone

Alex
Wed Jul 06 19:49:14 CDT 2005

I agree. I loved Money until 2005. That version and this version are
terrible. Period. Any posting that says it is anything different is a
bias opinion - ie employee.

Vadim
Wed Jul 06 21:35:18 CDT 2005

AP> I agree. I loved Money until 2005. That version and this version are
AP> terrible. Period. Any posting that says it is anything different is a
AP> bias opinion - ie employee.

Thanks for enlightening us with your wisdom, Alex. Sure, anyone whose
opinion does not match yours, is employee. Tell us Alex, is it a very big
sin to be an employee, or not so big?

Alex
Thu Jul 07 07:51:39 CDT 2005

Vadium,
I guess I should have elaborated more on the issues and not so
quickly assumed that the only posting I have seen so far is posted by
an employee. Though your comment of "Tell us Alex, is it a very big
sin to be an employee, or not so big?" does imply that I was not far
off base. Anyway, I don't want to get into all that.

I am just frustrated to see the direction that Money is taking. I
have purchased Money every year since Money 2001. From 2001-2004 every
year was a real treat as the product just got better and better each
year. However, starting in 2005, and continuing into version 2006, the
product took a wrong turn. Here is one example, the online updates is
a great idea. The problem is that it creates a duplicate account when
you try to set up online statements. This problem was well known and
has been posted on this newsgroup multiple times. I would certainly
assume that issues that are so well known would be fixed in the
following 2006 version. However, and I invite anyone to test this,
they are not.

Vadim
Thu Jul 07 08:51:54 CDT 2005

Hello Alex:
You wrote on 7 Jul 2005 05:51:39 -0700:

AP> I guess I should have elaborated more on the issues and not so
AP> quickly assumed that the only posting I have seen so far is posted by
AP> an employee. Though your comment of "Tell us Alex, is it a very big
AP> sin to be an employee, or not so big?" does imply that I was not far
AP> off base.

great news for me. Time to request my paycheck from Microsoft. If people
think I'm employee, maybe I am indeed?

The logic that anything positive can come only from an employee, is, um,
overly pessimistic, I'd say. Implyting that the only honest opinion is the
negative one. Bias can work both ways.


AP> I am just frustrated to see the direction that Money is taking. I
AP> have purchased Money every year since Money 2001. From 2001-2004 every
AP> year was a real treat as the product just got better and better each
AP> year. However, starting in 2005, and continuing into version 2006, the
AP> product took a wrong turn.

I think Money started becoming worse earler than that. Probably it was when
the product was "acquired" by MSN. Since MSN business is media, rather than
software, the conseqneces could not be different. See
http://blogs.msdn.com/philipsu/archive/2004/07/01/170682.aspx for details
from first hands (i.e. someone who _already_ collected the paycheck).


AP> Here is one example, the online updates is a great idea. The problem
AP> is that it creates a duplicate account when you try to set up online
AP> statements. This problem was well known and has been posted on this
AP> newsgroup multiple times. I would certainly assume that issues that
AP> are so well known would be fixed in the following 2006 version.
AP> However, and I invite anyone to test this, they are not.

As I understand, in M06 during online setup, you again (i.e. like before
M05) can skip some accounts downloaded from the bank, or match them to
already existing accounts. Am I wrong?


Vadim

johnbusc
Thu Jul 07 12:29:12 CDT 2005

Alex,

The creation of a duplicate account during online setup is not the
problem. It's whether the duplicated account can be successfully
merged.

Prior to M05, online setup found the accounts at your FI and prompted
you to either match them to existing accounts or let it create new.
Upon making your selection, it would proceed to download past
transactions from a period of the FI's choosing.

With M05, the accounts found online at your FI were setup as separate
new accounts with choice of initial download period after which you
could merge the new accounts with existing where applicable.

The only problem with the latter scenario is that when M05 was
released, the merge didn't work correctly most of the time which caused
much fear and trepidation about the entire process. These issues seem
to have been resolved for the most part.

One could assume that the reason for creating new accounts first, then
merging, is to permit the setup process and data download to complete
without interfering with existing accounts. Then, if desired, the user
can decide whether to merge and which transactions to include (if any).

If nothing else, it provides a more uniform setup process in that there
is no intermediate prompt to create new or match existing. This
decision is postponed until after setup is complete and is at the
user's discretion and time of choosing.

On merging with existing, the end result is the same as with earlier
versions as long as the process works! It appears to do so now based
on my own recent experiences. I will admit to a good deal of
skepticism on release of M05, but am no longer intimidated by the
setup/merge process. Just let it screw up once and I might be
whistling a different tune!

Anyway, I'd appreciate you comments on the above. Let me know what you
(or anyone else) thinks.

Regards,
JB


Alex Pavluck wrote:
> Vadium,
> I guess I should have elaborated more on the issues and not so
> quickly assumed that the only posting I have seen so far is posted by
> an employee. Though your comment of "Tell us Alex, is it a very big
> sin to be an employee, or not so big?" does imply that I was not far
> off base. Anyway, I don't want to get into all that.
>
> I am just frustrated to see the direction that Money is taking. I
> have purchased Money every year since Money 2001. From 2001-2004 every
> year was a real treat as the product just got better and better each
> year. However, starting in 2005, and continuing into version 2006, the
> product took a wrong turn. Here is one example, the online updates is
> a great idea. The problem is that it creates a duplicate account when
> you try to set up online statements. This problem was well known and
> has been posted on this newsgroup multiple times. I would certainly
> assume that issues that are so well known would be fixed in the
> following 2006 version. However, and I invite anyone to test this,
> they are not.

Alex
Thu Jul 07 13:22:25 CDT 2005

JB,
Good point. In my opinion if you click on the link to get online
statement for your account you are stating that you want to update your
current account and if you wanted another account to be created you
would have chosen the add new account option. I think that often if
someone is willing to put the time into something they can make
anything work. However, software should be easier than that after 5 or
more editions wouldn't you think?

I have screwed up many back up money files in both 2005 and now in
2006 due to duplicate accounts and downward spiral that can quickly
ensue when you try to get it all merged the way you want. Does anyone
else miss the days of simple 2 way banking that supported MS Money??

Mark
Thu Jul 07 13:48:48 CDT 2005

Once you've merged the online account with your manual account, online
updating will add new transactions to that merged account. Another new
account should not be created.

-Mark
"Alex Pavluck" <apavluck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120760545.642456.288480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> JB,
> Good point. In my opinion if you click on the link to get online
> statement for your account you are stating that you want to update your
> current account and if you wanted another account to be created you
> would have chosen the add new account option. I think that often if
> someone is willing to put the time into something they can make
> anything work. However, software should be easier than that after 5 or
> more editions wouldn't you think?
>
> I have screwed up many back up money files in both 2005 and now in
> 2006 due to duplicate accounts and downward spiral that can quickly
> ensue when you try to get it all merged the way you want. Does anyone
> else miss the days of simple 2 way banking that supported MS Money??
>

johnbusc
Thu Jul 07 14:48:23 CDT 2005

Mark,

Alex may be referring to symptoms of the Yodlee-based / MSN sync type
of update (Alex, is this the case?). I forgot to mention in my post
that none of my experience includes any of this type of setup so I
wouldn't know. Do any of your successful merges include Yodlee-based
accounts?

JB

Mark
Thu Jul 07 14:52:06 CDT 2005

Yes, Yodlee based accounts is what I was referring to.
-Mark

<johnbusc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120765703.283037.27730@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mark,
>
> Alex may be referring to symptoms of the Yodlee-based / MSN sync type
> of update (Alex, is this the case?). I forgot to mention in my post
> that none of my experience includes any of this type of setup so I
> wouldn't know. Do any of your successful merges include Yodlee-based
> accounts?
>
> JB
>

johnbusc
Thu Jul 07 15:04:13 CDT 2005

Alex,

Your prior post indicated you got the duplicate account "when you try
to set up online statements". Now you mention it occurs "if you click
on the link to get online statement". Which "link" are you referring
to? Does it only happen on setup? Please elaborate. Thanks.

JB

Vadim
Fri Jul 08 22:58:16 CDT 2005

j> With M05, the accounts found online at your FI were setup as separate
j> new accounts with choice of initial download period after which you
j> could merge the new accounts with existing where applicable.

j> The only problem with the latter scenario is that when M05 was
j> released, the merge didn't work correctly most of the time which caused
j> much fear and trepidation about the entire process. These issues seem
j> to have been resolved for the most part.

No, it's very far from being the only problem. Here's one scenario with dead end:
a couple has 3 accounts: one his; one hers; one joint. In order to access
individual accounts, they need two logins. With two logins, joint account
will be downloaded twice. The two instances can't be merged since they are
both online-enabled, and on different "online banks". Then Money downloads
all transactions on the joint account twice, which kills all planning, among
other things.

I'm sure there are also other scenarios resulting in duplicate
online-enabled accounts (thus non-mergeable).

Another consequence of this implementation is inability to delete an
online-enabled account without deleting all other accounts linked to the
same online bank. There is workaround for this: disable online access for
the online bank, which makes possible deletion of the the account; then
reenable online access to the bank. But if there are scheduled online
payments, they to be cancelled and then resubmitted, this is inconvenient to
say the least.



Vadim Rapp

Chris
Sat Jul 09 10:57:41 CDT 2005

M06 seems to have resolved that particular issue, at least with respect to
direct downloads. Not using a Passport, I have no idea how it works through
Yodlee.

"Vadim Rapp" <vr@myrealbox.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uMleupDhFHA.3436@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> No, it's very far from being the only problem. Here's one scenario with
> dead end: a couple has 3 accounts: one his; one hers; one joint. In order
> to access individual accounts, they need two logins. With two logins,
> joint account will be downloaded twice. The two instances can't be merged
> since they are both online-enabled, and on different "online banks". Then
> Money downloads all transactions on the joint account twice, which kills
> all planning, among other things.