Money2007 :: Slow Response

Upgraded from Money2003. Money2007 takes nearly 6 minutes to load and
consumes 85-95% of the CPU (according to Task Manager).

Changing screens, for example from Bills to Portfolio, takes anywhere from
15 to 25 seconds each time, and consumes nearly all of the CPU while it is
doing it.

Where did MoneyExpress go?!? What a pain to have to be in the account to
enter a simple transaction. I used MoneyExpress almost exclusively for my
day-to-day entries. This is supposed to be a "better" version?

Account Balancing -- where are the details we used to have? For example,
Starting Balance, Ending Balance, Deposits, Withdrawals, etc.? This was very
useful to have and now it's gone. Again, this is supposed to be better? You
don't take features *away* from a product!!

During a Portfolio transaction (Buy, Sell, etc.) it can take upwards of 40
seconds to complete each time I do one!

All of these things make the tool difficult to use, and I've been using
Money since 1993! Some versions were better, but Money2007 is not one of them.

Cal
Tue Dec 19 23:47:54 CST 2006

In microsoft.public.money, Roger Morse wrote:

>Upgraded from Money2003. Money2007 takes nearly 6 minutes to load and
>consumes 85-95% of the CPU (according to Task Manager).
>
>Changing screens, for example from Bills to Portfolio, takes anywhere from
>15 to 25 seconds each time, and consumes nearly all of the CPU while it is
>doing it.
>
>Where did MoneyExpress go?!? What a pain to have to be in the account to
>enter a simple transaction. I used MoneyExpress almost exclusively for my
>day-to-day entries. This is supposed to be a "better" version?
>
>Account Balancing -- where are the details we used to have? For example,
>Starting Balance, Ending Balance, Deposits, Withdrawals, etc.? This was very
>useful to have and now it's gone. Again, this is supposed to be better? You
>don't take features *away* from a product!!

You actually believe that? Guess addressing some of the other items
wouldn't be of interest at this point. Were you wanting to know how
to revert to Money 2003 and enter transactions by hand, vent, speed
up Money 2007, or what?

>
>During a Portfolio transaction (Buy, Sell, etc.) it can take upwards of 40
>seconds to complete each time I do one!
>
>All of these things make the tool difficult to use, and I've been using
>Money since 1993! Some versions were better, but Money2007 is not one of them.

Dick
Wed Dec 20 06:58:33 CST 2006

Two very relevant answers can be found at
http://umpmfaq.info/faqdb.php?q=187 and http://umpmfaq.info/faqdb.php?q=162.

"Roger Morse, Seattle WA" <Roger Morse, Seattle
WA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9EC2BF68-61E9-4508-B8BD-03FADD566262@microsoft.com...
> Upgraded from Money2003. Money2007 takes nearly 6 minutes to load and
> consumes 85-95% of the CPU (according to Task Manager).
>
> Changing screens, for example from Bills to Portfolio, takes anywhere from
> 15 to 25 seconds each time, and consumes nearly all of the CPU while it is
> doing it.
>
> Where did MoneyExpress go?!? What a pain to have to be in the account to
> enter a simple transaction. I used MoneyExpress almost exclusively for my
> day-to-day entries. This is supposed to be a "better" version?
>
> Account Balancing -- where are the details we used to have? For example,
> Starting Balance, Ending Balance, Deposits, Withdrawals, etc.? This was
> very
> useful to have and now it's gone. Again, this is supposed to be better?
> You
> don't take features *away* from a product!!
>
> During a Portfolio transaction (Buy, Sell, etc.) it can take upwards of 40
> seconds to complete each time I do one!
>
> All of these things make the tool difficult to use, and I've been using
> Money since 1993! Some versions were better, but Money2007 is not one of
> them.

Dick
Wed Dec 20 07:01:45 CST 2006

They thought this was an improvement. They do these focus groups and surveys
and stuff. Based on the answers, they decide what's important and what needs
added and what people don't care about and what needs removed. It's kinda
like if the auto makers asked people what control they used most, heard
"radio volume" and decided that, therefore, they could remove the steering
wheel and nobody would notice or care.

"Roger Morse, Seattle WA" <Roger Morse, Seattle
WA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9EC2BF68-61E9-4508-B8BD-03FADD566262@microsoft.com...
> Account Balancing -- where are the details we used to have? For example,
> Starting Balance, Ending Balance, Deposits, Withdrawals, etc.? This was
> very
> useful to have and now it's gone. Again, this is supposed to be better?
> You
> don't take features *away* from a product!!

XB77
Thu Dec 21 12:13:09 CST 2006

Rather than naive focus groups, why not carefully examine what sophisticated
users are asking for in the way of fixes, improvements, etc.? Bifurcate the
product into a M Essentials-like version for the folks from the focus groups
and a non-discounted, full-price fully functional version that has all
problems fixed, and has all the desired bells and whistles for folks like
us. I would pay $100 for a new version that was a real improvement to all
previous versions, was fixed, and had all important improvements that have
been suggested here over the years. Maybe even $200!

Dick
Thu Dec 21 12:29:34 CST 2006

Some of us have been arguing for that for almost a decade. MEss and the 60%
budget are proof positive how much impact that has had. There just aren't
enough of us, apparently.

"XB77" <XB77@My-Deja.com> wrote in message
news:V8Aih.3200$Iy5.3010@trnddc01...
> Rather than naive focus groups, why not carefully examine what
> sophisticated users are asking for in the way of fixes, improvements,
> etc.? Bifurcate the product into a M Essentials-like version for the
> folks from the focus groups and a non-discounted, full-price fully
> functional version that has all problems fixed, and has all the desired
> bells and whistles for folks like us. I would pay $100 for a new version
> that was a real improvement to all previous versions, was fixed, and had
> all important improvements that have been suggested here over the years.
> Maybe even $200!