Switch toQuickBooks PRO 2009 from 2006 questions

Posted by Ken Wampach on April 2, 2009, 5:02 pm

Please log in for more thread options

When we recently updated the tables in Basic Payroll under
QuickBooks Pro 2009, we got the message that it would no longer
calculate payroll taxes after May 31, 2009, even though we had
purchased a 12 month Basic Payroll license in January of 2009. I
was informed that we would get a credit for the unused portion,
if we did not upgrade, but I was disappointed that we were not
warned when we purchased the Payroll license, since they were
told we were using QuickBooks Pro 2009.

We did decide it was reasonable to purchase QuickBooks Pro 2009
at this time. Office Max has it for $99.99 this week, and they
threw in 3 other Intuit packages in their individual retail
boxes One is the 12 Month Basic Payroll Package. (The packaging
indicates that the payroll subscription has to be activted
before 5/31/2010 and within 90 days of purchase, although I
don't know how they can check the 90 day part) The others were
Web Creator and Credit Card processing. We also had a $15 off
coupon, so it was a little under $92 after sales tax.

I do have some questions. (FYI, we run Windows XP SP3 and high
priority updates are current.)

Is the "Look and Feel" of QuickBooks Pro 2009 pretty similar to
2006?

I noticed on a screen shot of the home screen was that the
Banking Account Balances were not displayed. Is there an option
to display them?

Are than any known issues if we leave 2006 on the machine, in
case we want to look at an archived Company File at some time in
the future? We left QuickBooks for Windows 5.0 on the machine,
and there did not seem to be any issues when Pro 2009 was
installed.

There are references to Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0. I read
somewhere that it is on the installation disk. The only .Net on
the machine is 1.1.
Is .NET 2.0 required to run Pro 2009 and Basic Payroll?
If .NET 2.0 is necessary, would I be better off to install .NET
Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1, so that I would not risk any
problems with anything funny in the version on the disk, if
something else (I read somewhere that if it detects .NET 2.0,
Windows Update will want to install 3.5 Service Pack 1) forces
me to get 3.5?
I would think the QuickBooks Pro 2009 installation package would
not try to overwrite the 2.0 that is supposed to be included in
3.5. Does anyone know if that is correct?

Thanks for any incite you can provide.

--
Ken Wampach - FirstNameATLastNameDOTorg

Posted by Laura on April 3, 2009, 7:32 am

Please log in for more thread options

> When we recently updated the tables in Basic Payroll under QuickBooks Pro

> 2009, we got the message that it would no longer calculate payroll taxes

> after May 31, 2009, even though we had purchased a 12 month Basic Payroll

> license in January of 2009. I was informed that we would get a credit for

> the unused portion, if we did not upgrade, but I was disappointed that we

> were not warned when we purchased the Payroll license, since they were

> told we were using QuickBooks Pro 2009.

It does not matter what you told Intuit..the software will detect that you
have 2006 running and your payroll subscription will stop working properly
after 5/31/09.

> We did decide it was reasonable to purchase QuickBooks Pro 2009 at this

> time. Office Max has it for $99.99 this week, and they threw in 3 other

> Intuit packages in their individual retail boxes One is the 12 Month Basic

> Payroll Package. (The packaging indicates that the payroll subscription

> has to be activted before 5/31/2010 and within 90 days of purchase,

> although I don't know how they can check the 90 day part) The others were

> Web Creator and Credit Card processing. We also had a $15 off coupon, so

> it was a little under $92 after sales tax.

That's a pretty good deal.

> I do have some questions. (FYI, we run Windows XP SP3 and high priority

> updates are current.)

> Is the "Look and Feel" of QuickBooks Pro 2009 pretty similar to 2006?

Yes.The major changes to the user interface were made with 2006.

> I noticed on a screen shot of the home screen was that the Banking Account

> Balances were not displayed. Is there an option to display them?

Account balances are displayed on the home page. You can "hide" the list but
I don't know of an option to remove that option. Poor screen shot?

> Are than any known issues if we leave 2006 on the machine, in case we want

> to look at an archived Company File at some time in the future? We left

> QuickBooks for Windows 5.0 on the machine, and there did not seem to be

> any issues when Pro 2009 was installed.

I hope not. I have 2006/7/8/9 installed on my machine. Just install them to
their own folder. Just watch the screen carefully when you do the
installation. I can't remember the actual sequence of the installation but
make sure you specify that you are not doing an upgrade.

> There are references to Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0. I read somewhere

> that it is on the installation disk. The only .Net on the machine is 1.1.

> Is .NET 2.0 required to run Pro 2009 and Basic Payroll?

> If .NET 2.0 is necessary, would I be better off to install .NET Framework

> 3.5 Service Pack 1, so that I would not risk any problems with anything

> funny in the version on the disk, if something else (I read somewhere

> that if it detects .NET 2.0, Windows Update will want to install 3.5

> Service Pack 1) forces me to get 3.5?

My XP Pro machine has .net 1.1, 2.0Sp1 and 3.5sp1 but I just upgraded that
machine to XP SP3 this week so I don't know when 3.5SP1 was installed. I
would use the windows update process and get fully updated before installing
QB2009. I'd rather use a MS provided update instead of relying on an
out-of-date upgrade on the Intuit CD. Get your machine to 3.5SP1 so that you
know the source of the installation. Here is a link to .net 3.5SP1:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=AB99342F-5D1A-413D-8319-81DA479AB0D7&displaylang=en

> I would think the QuickBooks Pro 2009 installation package would not try

> to overwrite the 2.0 that is supposed to be included in 3.5. Does anyone

> know if that is correct?

It did not overrite 2.0 on my machine. It installed 3.5 as an additional
component on my computer.

How did you miss the 2.0 installation on your machine?

> Thanks for any incite you can provide.

> --

> Ken Wampach - FirstNameATLastNameDOTorg

Posted by Ken Wampach on April 3, 2009, 3:38 pm

Please log in for more thread options

>> When we recently updated the tables in Basic Payroll under

>> QuickBooks Pro 2009, we got the message that it would no

>> longer calculate payroll taxes after May 31, 2009, even

>> though we had purchased a 12 month Basic Payroll license in

>> January of 2009. I was informed that we would get a credit

>> for the unused portion, if we did not upgrade, but I was

>> disappointed that we were not warned when we purchased the

>> Payroll license, since they were told we were using

>> QuickBooks Pro 2009.

> It does not matter what you told Intuit..the software will

> detect that you have 2006 running and your payroll

> subscription will stop working properly after 5/31/09.

My original post was wrong! We were using QuckBooks Pro 2006,
and that is what they were told when we purchased the Payroll
license in January 2009. The sales person also knew that, since
he looked up the account records. That is why I thought we
should have been warned. I knew they don't sell payroll for
versions over 3 years old, but I was not aware that a payroll
license with time left on it would essentially be deactivated.
I presume it was just a mistake that we were not warened. Sales
people handle lots of calls and they are human. I better have
some tollerance for human error considering my own slip-up in
the info about what I told them .

>> We did decide it was reasonable to purchase QuickBooks Pro

>> 2009 at this time. Office Max has it for $99.99 this week,

>> and they threw in 3 other Intuit packages in their individual

>> retail boxes One is the 12 Month Basic Payroll Package. (The

>> packaging indicates that the payroll subscription has to be

>> activted before 5/31/2010 and within 90 days of purchase,

>> although I don't know how they can check the 90 day part)

>> The others were Web Creator and Credit Card processing. We

>> also had a $15 off coupon, so it was a little under $92 after

>> sales tax.

> That's a pretty good deal.

>> I do have some questions. (FYI, we run Windows XP SP3 and

>> high priority updates are current.)

>> Is the "Look and Feel" of QuickBooks Pro 2009 pretty similar

>> to 2006?

> Yes.The major changes to the user interface were made with

> 2006.

>> I noticed on a screen shot of the home screen was that the

>> Banking Account Balances were not displayed. Is there an

>> option to display them?

> Account balances are displayed on the home page. You can

> "hide" the list but I don't know of an option to remove that

> option. Poor screen shot?

>> Are than any known issues if we leave 2006 on the machine, in

>> case we want to look at an archived Company File at some time

>> in the future? We left QuickBooks for Windows 5.0 on the

>> machine, and there did not seem to be any issues when Pro

>> 2009 was installed.

> I hope not. I have 2006/7/8/9 installed on my machine. Just

> install them to their own folder. Just watch the screen

> carefully when you do the installation. I can't remember the

> actual sequence of the installation but make sure you specify

> that you are not doing an upgrade.

>> There are references to Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0. I read

>> somewhere that it is on the installation disk. The only .Net

>> on the machine is 1.1.

>> Is .NET 2.0 required to run Pro 2009 and Basic Payroll?

>> If .NET 2.0 is necessary, would I be better off to install

>> .NET Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1, so that I would not risk

>> any problems with anything funny in the version on the disk,

>> if something else (I read somewhere that if it detects .NET

>> 2.0, Windows Update will want to install 3.5 Service Pack 1)

>> forces me to get 3.5?

> My XP Pro machine has .net 1.1, 2.0Sp1 and 3.5sp1 but I just

> upgraded that machine to XP SP3 this week so I don't know when

> 3.5SP1 was installed. I would use the windows update process

> and get fully updated before installing QB2009. I'd rather use

> a MS provided update instead of relying on an out-of-date

> upgrade on the Intuit CD. Get your machine to 3.5SP1 so that

> you know the source of the installation. Here is a link to

> .net 3.5SP1:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=AB99342F-5D1A-413D-8319-81DA479AB0D7&displaylang=en

>> I would think the QuickBooks Pro 2009 installation package

>> would not try to overwrite the 2.0 that is supposed to be

>> included in 3.5. Does anyone know if that is correct?

> It did not overrite 2.0 on my machine. It installed 3.5 as an

> additional component on my computer.

Thanks very much for all the information.

With tax work to do, I don't plan to make any changes that are
not abolutely necessary for a couple of weeks. I will then do a
full hard drive backup, in case something goes wrong. I was
leaning toward using Windows Update, to install .NET 3.5 and
your post has convinced me to go that route. (I have seen some
posts indicating that some people using other methods have had
some Windows Update issues later involving .NET.) Then I will
install QuickBooks 2009 and bring it to the latest revision
before I open company files and activate payroll.

> How did you miss the 2.0 installation on your machine?

The only software I run that uses .NET is QuickBooks, and PRO
2006 (our current verion) works with .NET version 1.1. When I
use Windows update, I use custom mode which allows me to delay
any updates I might be afraid of. I believe I have gotten high
priority updates for 1.1 which have been installed. For me, the
later versions of .NET were listed under optional software.

As I understand it, Windows Update for Windows XP considers .NET
Versions 2.0 and beyond to be optional for a machine that only
has .NET Version 1.1. As soon as 2.0 or later is installed,
Windows Update will classify the 3.5 Service Pack 1 and updates
to it as High Prioity.

Again - Thanks very much for the info!
--
Ken Wampach - FirstNameATLastNameDOTorg

Posted by Laura on April 3, 2009, 6:06 pm

Please log in for more thread options

>>> When we recently updated the tables in Basic Payroll under QuickBooks

>>> Pro 2009, we got the message that it would no longer calculate payroll

>>> taxes after May 31, 2009, even though we had purchased a 12 month Basic

>>> Payroll license in January of 2009. I was informed that we would get a

>>> credit for the unused portion, if we did not upgrade, but I was

>>> disappointed that we were not warned when we purchased the Payroll

>>> license, since they were told we were using QuickBooks Pro 2009.

>> It does not matter what you told Intuit..the software will detect that

>> you have 2006 running and your payroll subscription will stop working

>> properly after 5/31/09.

> My original post was wrong! We were using QuckBooks Pro 2006, and that is

> what they were told when we purchased the Payroll license in January

> 2009. The sales person also knew that, since he looked up the account

> records. That is why I thought we should have been warned. I knew they

> don't sell payroll for versions over 3 years old, but I was not aware that

> a payroll license with time left on it would essentially be deactivated. I

> presume it was just a mistake that we were not warened. Sales people

> handle lots of calls and they are human. I better have some tollerance for

> human error considering my own slip-up in the info about what I told them

> .

While your payroll in 2006 will be "deactivated" it should be available
immediately in 2009. Just enter the appropriate payroll license codes before
running the first payroll in 2009. Don't forget to check for payroll and QB
updates before doing your first paycheck.

>>> We did decide it was reasonable to purchase QuickBooks Pro 2009 at this

>>> time. Office Max has it for $99.99 this week, and they threw in 3 other

>>> Intuit packages in their individual retail boxes One is the 12 Month

>>> Basic Payroll Package. (The packaging indicates that the payroll

>>> subscription has to be activted before 5/31/2010 and within 90 days of

>>> purchase, although I don't know how they can check the 90 day part) The

>>> others were Web Creator and Credit Card processing. We also had a $15

>>> off coupon, so it was a little under $92 after sales tax.

>> That's a pretty good deal.

>>> I do have some questions. (FYI, we run Windows XP SP3 and high priority

>>> updates are current.)

>>>

>>> Is the "Look and Feel" of QuickBooks Pro 2009 pretty similar to 2006?

>> Yes.The major changes to the user interface were made with 2006.

>>>

>>> I noticed on a screen shot of the home screen was that the Banking

>>> Account Balances were not displayed. Is there an option to display them?

>> Account balances are displayed on the home page. You can "hide" the list

>> but I don't know of an option to remove that option. Poor screen shot?

>>> Are than any known issues if we leave 2006 on the machine, in case we

>>> want to look at an archived Company File at some time in the future? We

>>> left QuickBooks for Windows 5.0 on the machine, and there did not seem

>>> to be any issues when Pro 2009 was installed.

>> I hope not. I have 2006/7/8/9 installed on my machine. Just install them

>> to their own folder. Just watch the screen carefully when you do the

>> installation. I can't remember the actual sequence of the installation

>> but make sure you specify that you are not doing an upgrade.

>>> There are references to Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0. I read somewhere

>>> that it is on the installation disk. The only .Net on the machine is

>>> 1.1.

>>> Is .NET 2.0 required to run Pro 2009 and Basic Payroll?

>>> If .NET 2.0 is necessary, would I be better off to install .NET

>>> Framework 3.5 Service Pack 1, so that I would not risk any problems with

>>> anything funny in the version on the disk, if something else (I read

>>> somewhere that if it detects .NET 2.0, Windows Update will want to

>>> install 3.5 Service Pack 1) forces me to get 3.5?

>> My XP Pro machine has .net 1.1, 2.0Sp1 and 3.5sp1 but I just upgraded

>> that machine to XP SP3 this week so I don't know when 3.5SP1 was

>> installed. I would use the windows update process and get fully updated

>> before installing QB2009. I'd rather use a MS provided update instead of

>> relying on an out-of-date upgrade on the Intuit CD. Get your machine to

>> 3.5SP1 so that you know the source of the installation. Here is a link to

>> .net 3.5SP1:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=AB99342F-5D1A-413D-8319-81DA479AB0D7&displaylang=en

>>> I would think the QuickBooks Pro 2009 installation package would not try

>>> to overwrite the 2.0 that is supposed to be included in 3.5. Does anyone

>>> know if that is correct?

>> It did not overrite 2.0 on my machine. It installed 3.5 as an additional

>> component on my computer.

> Thanks very much for all the information.

> With tax work to do, I don't plan to make any changes that are not

> abolutely necessary for a couple of weeks. I will then do a full hard

> drive backup, in case something goes wrong. I was leaning toward using

> Windows Update, to install .NET 3.5 and your post has convinced me to go

> that route. (I have seen some posts indicating that some people using

> other methods have had some Windows Update issues later involving .NET.)

> Then I will install QuickBooks 2009 and bring it to the latest revision

> before I open company files and activate payroll.

>> How did you miss the 2.0 installation on your machine?

> The only software I run that uses .NET is QuickBooks, and PRO 2006 (our

> current verion) works with .NET version 1.1. When I use Windows update, I

> use custom mode which allows me to delay any updates I might be afraid of.

> I believe I have gotten high priority updates for 1.1 which have been

> installed. For me, the later versions of .NET were listed under optional

> software.

> As I understand it, Windows Update for Windows XP considers .NET Versions

> 2.0 and beyond to be optional for a machine that only has .NET Version

> 1.1. As soon as 2.0 or later is installed, Windows Update will classify

> the 3.5 Service Pack 1 and updates to it as High Prioity.

It is my understanding that 3.5SP3 fixes numerous issues created by version
2 that prompted them to label 3.5SP1 as a High Priority.

I typically do custom updates too but when MS classifies something as a high
priority I usually end up installing it unless I see something that warns me
to avoid that particular update.

> Again - Thanks very much for the info!

> --

> Ken Wampach - FirstNameATLastNameDOTorg