Are ya'll ready for QB 2007?

Posted by klunk on September 27, 2006, 4:20 pm

Please log in for more thread options

It's out on the shelves already (virtual shelves that is...)

http://quickbooks.intuit.com/

It's only September 2006! Yikes!

The new feature matrix doesn't show much new.

I think a lot of the effort went into preparing for
Windows Vista because now the various support
files that QB used to dump in "Program Files" are
now scattered around in the various "Documents
& Settings" sub-folders.

And of course there is the new Google integration,
which one can fortunately decline to install.

Posted by GWB on September 27, 2006, 7:36 pm

Please log in for more thread options

wrote:

>It's out on the shelves already (virtual shelves that is...)

>http://quickbooks.intuit.com/

>It's only September 2006! Yikes!

>The new feature matrix doesn't show much new.

>I think a lot of the effort went into preparing for

>Windows Vista because now the various support

>files that QB used to dump in "Program Files" are

>now scattered around in the various "Documents

>& Settings" sub-folders.

>And of course there is the new Google integration,

>which one can fortunately decline to install.

I'll be ready for QB Pro 2009.
(my next forced upgrade)

Posted by Allan Martin on September 27, 2006, 10:19 pm

Please log in for more thread options

> It's out on the shelves already (virtual shelves that is...)

> http://quickbooks.intuit.com/

> It's only September 2006! Yikes!

> The new feature matrix doesn't show much new.

> I think a lot of the effort went into preparing for

> Windows Vista because now the various support

> files that QB used to dump in "Program Files" are

> now scattered around in the various "Documents

> & Settings" sub-folders.

Using the term dump implies QB is garbage. Can we assume you are not a QB
fanboy? Unless one is anal, the location the program files are installed in
really does not matter.

Personally I think your got it wrong. It is Microsoft that is working hard
to make sure legacy programs run well in Vista not the other way around. I
suspect it will be at least one year if not more before QB incorporates any
new Vista features.

> And of course there is the new Google integration,

> which one can fortunately decline to install.

Posted by klunk on September 28, 2006, 12:42 am

Please log in for more thread options

"Allan Martin" :

> Using the term dump implies QB is garbage. Can we assume you

> are not a QB fanboy?

I don't think QB is garbage. But you are right that I'm not
exactly a fanboy -- which I would describe as one who
turns a blind eye to a particular piece of software's shortcomings.

I am a software developer and have been writing apps that
interface with QB for nearly 10 years, and have used QB since
1992. I've consulted to businesses and recommended and
supported QB. I still think it is the best small business
accounting package. But I do have issues with some of
Intuit's policies. A rigid annual upgrade cycle for an application
of this type is, in my opinion, a disservice to users. Starting
with version 2000, it was frustrating to see features get
broken or discarded along with arbitrary changes to the
UI that drove many users I dealt with nuts. Granted, there
are often some new features that are great, but it seems
like the annual rush to get out the new version takes a toll.

As a developer, the SDK is both a godsend and a nightmare.
On the plus side it provides a sanctioned method to enhance
QB and get at the data. On the downside there are glaring
holes such as crippled access to payroll data, serious performance
issues on certain data requests, and a general lack of syncronization
of addition of new QB features and their support in the SDK.

> Unless one is anal, the location the program files are installed in

> really does not matter.

Ahhh, but that's the rub -- there are "program files" which are only
read or executed, and then there are a program's data files which
are written to as well. The files I mentioned QB dumping are it's
data files: logs, ini files, even qbw files.

I don't think it is anal to take reasonable steps to ensure
users can secure their computers. Microsoft has been pushing
developers to not write to Program Files except during installation
for years, for good reason. A given computer is much more secure
when as much activity as possible takes place while the user is
running with limited user rights, since limited users are restricted
to read/execute access to program files and other key areas of the
system. This makes it more difficult for malware to gain access to
executable and critical system files. But until recently, QB would
not run under limited user rights out of the box.

> Personally I think your got it wrong. It is Microsoft that is working hard

> to make sure legacy programs run well in Vista not the other way around. I

> suspect it will be at least one year if not more before QB incorporates

> any new Vista features.

Microsoft is working hard to support legacy applicatons in Vista. But
believe me, I have firsthand knowledge that there is going to be a
lot of frustrated users out there with Vista regarding legacy apps.

As for QB and Vista, I have QB 2007 installed on Vista RC1 and
as far as I can tell it is fully compliant. There was one little hiccup
with the installer, but it seems to run fine and Intuit has put a lot
of effort into putting their program data files in the proper locations.

I haven't bothered to try QB 2006 or earlier yet on Vista. I'm sure it
can be massaged into working.

Posted by Allan Martin on September 28, 2006, 9:19 am

Please log in for more thread options

Your point well taken. I have also done a complete 360 concerning your
fanboy status. You are a fanboy, stand up and be proud.

As far as the ridgid anual upgrade cycle I believe we can both agreee that
if there wasn't as much competion out there the version cycles would be
futher apart. Its the nature of the industry.

> "Allan Martin" :

>> Using the term dump implies QB is garbage. Can we assume you

>> are not a QB fanboy?

> I don't think QB is garbage. But you are right that I'm not

> exactly a fanboy -- which I would describe as one who

> turns a blind eye to a particular piece of software's shortcomings.

> I am a software developer and have been writing apps that

> interface with QB for nearly 10 years, and have used QB since

> 1992. I've consulted to businesses and recommended and

> supported QB. I still think it is the best small business

> accounting package. But I do have issues with some of

> Intuit's policies. A rigid annual upgrade cycle for an application

> of this type is, in my opinion, a disservice to users. Starting

> with version 2000, it was frustrating to see features get

> broken or discarded along with arbitrary changes to the

> UI that drove many users I dealt with nuts. Granted, there

> are often some new features that are great, but it seems

> like the annual rush to get out the new version takes a toll.

> As a developer, the SDK is both a godsend and a nightmare.

> On the plus side it provides a sanctioned method to enhance

> QB and get at the data. On the downside there are glaring

> holes such as crippled access to payroll data, serious performance

> issues on certain data requests, and a general lack of syncronization

> of addition of new QB features and their support in the SDK.

>> Unless one is anal, the location the program files are installed in

>> really does not matter.

> Ahhh, but that's the rub -- there are "program files" which are only

> read or executed, and then there are a program's data files which

> are written to as well. The files I mentioned QB dumping are it's

> data files: logs, ini files, even qbw files.

> I don't think it is anal to take reasonable steps to ensure

> users can secure their computers. Microsoft has been pushing

> developers to not write to Program Files except during installation

> for years, for good reason. A given computer is much more secure

> when as much activity as possible takes place while the user is

> running with limited user rights, since limited users are restricted

> to read/execute access to program files and other key areas of the

> system. This makes it more difficult for malware to gain access to

> executable and critical system files. But until recently, QB would

> not run under limited user rights out of the box.

>> Personally I think your got it wrong. It is Microsoft that is working

>> hard to make sure legacy programs run well in Vista not the other way

>> around. I suspect it will be at least one year if not more before QB

>> incorporates any new Vista features.

> Microsoft is working hard to support legacy applicatons in Vista. But

> believe me, I have firsthand knowledge that there is going to be a

> lot of frustrated users out there with Vista regarding legacy apps.

> As for QB and Vista, I have QB 2007 installed on Vista RC1 and

> as far as I can tell it is fully compliant. There was one little hiccup

> with the installer, but it seems to run fine and Intuit has put a lot

> of effort into putting their program data files in the proper locations.

> I haven't bothered to try QB 2006 or earlier yet on Vista. I'm sure it

> can be massaged into working.