More Bugs 2007 P


More Bugs 2007 P

Groups | Search | About

User Password

Lost Password?

Quicken Personal Finance Discussions - Quicken - personal finance software discussions

get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed

add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content

add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content

add this group's latest topics to your Google content

Yahoo!

Google

Windows Live

del.icio.us digg

digg

Netscape

Subject

Author

Date

More Bugs 2007 P

PSJ

08-11-2006

danbrown

PSJ

PSJ

danbrown

PSJ

danbrown

PSJ

danbrown

John Pollard

PSJ

John Pollard

PSJ

John Pollard

Posted by PSJ on August 13, 2006, 10:41 am

Please log in for more thread options

>>>

>>> So, explain why something similar isn't happening to (many) others,

>>> which would be the case if it was truly a "bug", as you maliciously

>>> allege.

>>>

>>> Your "evidence" simply isn't persuasive.

>>>

>>> db

>>>

>> malicious -- gosh that's the first time I have been accused of being

>> malicious -- I thought software bugs & hackers were malicious. I love

>> name callers!

> You have expended way too much effort trying to proclaim that you have

> found a bug ... and very little effort trying to solve a problem.

> I don't know whether that is malicious, but it is definitely misguided.

> If you insist on your predisposition that you must have discovered a bug,

> you are undeserving of assistance.

All right, I "think" it's a bug & here is the reason why; after being called
malicious I uninstalled 07, yet again, reinstalled 06, restored from 08/08
backup. Downloaded the investment acc'ts (there are 4 associated w/this
acc't # & pin) using web connect, saved to desktop where I could examine
them. All 4 acc'ts contained accurate info & for the acc't in ? there were 2
transactions -- 1 sell for $10,000 & 1 buy for the same am't dated 08/07.
Then did a 1 step update w/2006 & those 2 transactions were downloaded, I
accepted them & no extraneous 1998 cash "removals." were added to the acc't.
I then went through an identical process w/2007 -- & guess what -- 2 $20,000
"remove" transactions adding $40,000 cash in 1998. If not a bug, certainly
aberrant behavior. So to not be malicious I will change the semantics --
actually I thought bug sounded less noxious/malicious than aberrant.

I have yet to attempt John's suggestion in the forum to try a test file as
it would take even more time than the routine described. As mentioned there
are 4 acc'ts associated with this fi -- all are over 2 years old -- & USAA
downloads all transactions for the last 2 years when activating an acc't. At
this point I find that process overwhelming. Maybe I'll try it when I have
more time & energy -- now off to church to confess my malicious behaviour.
--
PSJ

Posted by John Pollard on August 13, 2006, 11:58 am

Please log in for more thread options

> All right, I "think" it's a bug & here is the reason why;

> after being called malicious I uninstalled 07, yet again,

> reinstalled 06, restored from 08/08 backup. Downloaded the

> investment acc'ts (there are 4 associated w/this acc't # &

> pin) using web connect, saved to desktop where I could examine

> them.

> All 4 acc'ts contained accurate info & for the acc't in ?

> there were 2 transactions -- 1 sell for $10,000 & 1 buy for

> the same am't dated 08/07.

It's not clear to me whether you are saying you examined the
contents of the QFX file here?

> Then did a 1 step update w/2006 & those 2 transactions were

> downloaded, I accepted them & no extraneous 1998 cash

> "removals." were added to the acc't.

> I then went through an identical process w/2007

Did the "identical process" include initiating a new download
using Q2007?

> -- & guess what -- 2 $20,000 "remove" transactions adding

> $40,000 cash in 1998.

What type of Quicken account are we talking about?

What real world transactions occurred on the date(s) of the 2
$20,000 transactions?

Is "remove" the "Action" value? If not, what field is it in,
and what is the "Action" value.

Does Q2007 have any new investment account transaction types?

Do you have your Quicken Investment Transactions preferences set
to "Show hidden transactions"? If so, do you have any
placeholder transactions in the misbehaving account? (They
would have "Entry" in the "Action" field).

> If not a bug, certainly aberrant behavior. So to not be

> malicious I will change the semantics -- actually I thought

> bug sounded less noxious/malicious than aberrant.

I never had any disagreement that you were seeing different
behavior between Q2006 and Q2007 ... what you see, is what you
see. I also agree that there is no good explanation of that
differing behavior ... yet.

> I have yet to attempt John's suggestion in the forum to try a

> test file as it would take even more time than the routine

> described.

This would help rule out data corruption being involved.

> As mentioned there are 4 acc'ts associated with this fi

But you only need to setup the one account that has the problem.

> -- all are over 2 years old -- & USAA downloads all

> transactions for the last 2 years when activating an acc't. At

> this point I find that process overwhelming.

I agree that this will still be a fair amount of work; basically
to accommodate the fact that you won't have complete data for
the account.

Before trying the New file, you could make a Quicken Copy of
your Q2007 file, then Validate that, and see if any errors are
found/fixed.

> Maybe I'll try it when I have more time & energy -- now off to

> church to confess my malicious behaviour.

I think you misunderstood; the problem is not with the word bug,
but with the mindset that often accompanies an attempt to prove
that a problem is a bug.

Your problem certainly could be a bug; and it is always a good
thing when bugs can be identified, and the means to reproduce
them can be found. If you can conclusively verify that this is
a bug, you will be doing yourself a favor.

But rushing to declare a problem to be a bug often results in
less attention paid to the gathering of the information
necessary to make certain it is a bug, and to be able to
reproduce it. And that rush has, too many times, caused a
financial institution error, a user error, or an error by
non-Quicken software to be seriously considered a Quicken bug.
Sending "bug" reports to Intuit for problems that are not
Quicken bugs just takes away from Intuit's capacity to fix real
bugs, while providing no relief to the people experiencing the
problem.

I prefer to think of starting with a problem to solve; at the
end of the day, if the process of trying to solve the problem
uncovers facts that support a designation of the problem as a
bug, so be it. But with all the other possibilities of causes
of problems, predispositions can only hinder the discovery of a
solution.

Finally; I wonder why so many are in such a hurry to designate a
problem, a bug. Of all the possible causes of a problem, a bug
should be one of the least desirable causes to find. There is
only a small window of time for the fixing of most bugs for a
specific Quicken version ... basically just a few months, then
the developers will be moving on to the next version of Quicken.
User errors, user misunderstanding, third-party software
conflicts, even financial institution errors are generally much
more desirable as problem causers because they usually can be
fixed much more quickly, and they are more likely to be fixed
for the version in which they were discovered.

Posted by PSJ on August 14, 2006, 6:57 pm

Please log in for more thread options

John,
Thanks for your response -- but I surrender, give up, whatever. Today, I ran
into yet another problem w/07. I have a scheduled transaction for an
investment acc't (this is a treasury direct acc't) with a note that pays
semi-annual interest -- it's not complicated the interest gets transferred
to a savings acc't & this is the 4th year & 8th interest payment for this 5
year note. This a.m. I entered the scheduled transaction & then recorded it;
it looked fine, $ am't accurate, transfer into savings accurate -- but when
I looked at the balance of the acc't I discovered that 4900+ shares had been
added to that T Note. Nowhere did I find how these shares had been added to
the note. There was NO transaction showing an addition of shares & the
memorized transaction showed an interest transfer of the correct $ am't. I
deleted the interest transaction & the shares returned to the correct #. I
manually re-entered the interest & the # of shares did not change.

I have had it with the behavior of '07. As mentioned earlier, I am diligent
of taking care of qkn file set prior to converting to the new software. I do
backup first, then copy, then validate, then check acc't balances between
the original & the copy prior to installing & converting the renamed copy.
Because of all the craziness with '07, I have also validated this converted
data with no errors. I have not super validated as I read in the forum that
would cause a problem with attachments & I do have a few of those.

I am persistent, I will continue to work with '07, but I'll keep my primary
financial information on another computer with '06. BTW I did spend about 2
hours w/bugs this a.m. -- ants have invaded our kitchen!
--
PSJ

Posted by DP on August 15, 2006, 12:22 am

Please log in for more thread options

> Finally; I wonder why so many are in such a hurry to designate a problem,

> a bug. Of all the possible causes of a problem, a bug should be one of

> the least desirable causes to find.

Maybe people are just in a hurry to notify other users of a potential
problem and/or ask other users if they've seen the same problem and/or ask
users if they know the solution to a particular problem. I would think we
would want that kind of vitality in a newsgroup.
Perhaps the correct protocol would be for the poster, after describing the
problem, to ask "is this a bug?" But there ain't no way you're going to get
that rule promulgated and adhered to.
I think the only preventative for the premature proclamation of a bug is the
possibility that the poster who declares the existence of a bug faces the
strong possibility of being shamed by members of this group who can prove to
the poster that it was his error and not a program flaw that caused the
problem.
In other words, if you're going to call it a bug, make sure you've
eliminated the possibility it's not. If you don't do that, then don't
complain if someone shows you it was your mistake and not a program bug.
Otherwise just point out that you have a problem and wonder if other folks
have an answer to it.

But on the other hand..... I don't think we should get all up in arms if
somebody claims they've found a bug. That is, unless you are one of the
programmers who work on Quicken. Otherwise, you really don't have any skin
in the game. It's not like they called your grandma ugly or anything like
that.

>There is only a small window of time for the fixing of most bugs for a

>specific Quicken version

Which may be a good reason for posters to draw attention to specific
problems as soon as they crop up, whether or not they can prove it is a bug.
It seems to me its results we all should be interested in (the result being
a better Quicken); how we get to those results isn't as important.

Posted by John Pollard on August 15, 2006, 12:42 am

Please log in for more thread options

>> Finally; I wonder why so many are in such a hurry to

>> designate a problem, a bug. Of all the possible causes of a

>> problem, a bug should be one of the least desirable causes to

>> find.

> Maybe people are just in a hurry to notify other users of a

> potential problem and/or ask other users if they've seen the

> same problem and/or ask users if they know the solution to a

> particular problem. I would think we would want that kind of

> vitality in a newsgroup.

> Perhaps the correct protocol would be for the poster, after

> describing the problem, to ask "is this a bug?" But there

> ain't no way you're going to get that rule promulgated and

> adhered to.

> I think the only preventative for the premature proclamation

> of a bug is the possibility that the poster who declares the

> existence of a bug faces the strong possibility of being

> shamed by members of this group who can prove to the poster

> that it was his error and not a program flaw that caused the

> problem.

> In other words, if you're going to call it a bug, make sure

> you've eliminated the possibility it's not. If you don't do

> that, then don't complain if someone shows you it was your

> mistake and not a program bug.

> Otherwise just point out that you have a problem and wonder if

> other folks have an answer to it.

> But on the other hand..... I don't think we should get all up

> in arms if somebody claims they've found a bug. That is,

> unless you are one of the programmers who work on Quicken.

> Otherwise, you really don't have any skin in the game. It's

> not like they called your grandma ugly or anything like that.

I'm not up in arms. And my purpose wasn't to suggest doing
anything to anybody; it was intended to get some people
thinking: "Be careful what you wish for". And I intended to
note that once a person gets a vested interest in having a
problem determined to be a bug, they have an ox that they are
afraid can be gored ... often making them less useful in the
problem solving process as they feel they must protect their
claim.

My point is that the biggest deterrent to premature bug
diagnosis
should be the unnecessary added difficulty in solving the
problem. And I was fairly certain that very few people would
actually embrace the thought. One might be nice though.

>>There is only a small window of time for the fixing of most

>>bugs for a specific Quicken version

> Which may be a good reason for posters to draw attention to

> specific problems as soon as they crop up, whether or not they

> can prove it is a bug.

> It seems to me its results we all should be interested in (the

> result being a better Quicken); how we get to those results

> isn't as important.

I would swear I've posted that same notion dozens of times in
the past, and my post you're replying to intended no
contradiction of that thought.

Similar Threads	Posted
Paycheque bugs?	May 21, 2007, 12:45 am
Summary of Quicken Bugs	February 9, 2007, 7:33 pm
Quicken 2008: Bugs Not Fixed from Previous Versions	September 1, 2007, 1:18 pm
2007/10/15 Peachtree Premium Accounting 2007, QuickBooks Enterprise Solutions 7.0, Quicken Premier 2008, Quicken Home and Business 2008, other new programs	October 15, 2007, 7:11 am
Q 2007	July 31, 2006, 9:28 pm
For Mac 2007	April 2, 2007, 8:53 pm
Help with TT H&B 2007	April 23, 2008, 12:33 pm
Q 2007 unstable	August 27, 2006, 10:56 am
Turbotax 2007?	September 2, 2006, 2:39 pm
Q_deluxe 2007 ?	October 1, 2006, 7:53 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software

XML Sitemap