Quicken 2010 issues

Posted by Jeff M on October 16, 2009, 10:23 am

Please log in for more thread options

I just loaded Quicken 2010 Premier last night. I noted the following
and may be switching back to 2009 until one of them is fixed.

The one problem is that Valic which recently added direct connect for
Quicken was working fine in 2009 and no longer works with 2010. I
tried again this morning on the assumption that it may have been a
temporary problem at Valic but again it did not work. Still not sure
whether this is Valic but will check today with 2009 to confirm.

The other is a feature change that is bothersome. On the Bills tab
there used to be a Calendar view that allowed you to see the entire
list by month. This is no longer available. Now you can only see the
next 7, 14, or 30 days. The calendar view is available if you go to
bills through the tools menu. From the Bill tab I could find no way
to see beyond 30 days. Not having an option to see the entire next
month or future months is a step backwards in my opinion.

Jeff

Posted by totfit on October 16, 2009, 4:34 pm

Please log in for more thread options

wrote:

>I just loaded Quicken 2010 Premier last night. I noted the following

>and may be switching back to 2009 until one of them is fixed.

>The one problem is that Valic which recently added direct connect for

>Quicken was working fine in 2009 and no longer works with 2010. I

>tried again this morning on the assumption that it may have been a

>temporary problem at Valic but again it did not work. Still not sure

>whether this is Valic but will check today with 2009 to confirm.

>The other is a feature change that is bothersome. On the Bills tab

>there used to be a Calendar view that allowed you to see the entire

>list by month. This is no longer available. Now you can only see the

>next 7, 14, or 30 days. The calendar view is available if you go to

>bills through the tools menu. From the Bill tab I could find no way

>to see beyond 30 days. Not having an option to see the entire next

>month or future months is a step backwards in my opinion.

>Jeff

I agree totally with the views being a "downgrade". Also, even with
the list view you could jump to the next month. Something you can no
longer do. This seems at least for me to decrease funcitonality. I
wish I would get over my obsession to have to make changes and just
stick with what I have.

Posted by John Pollard on October 16, 2009, 8:22 pm

Please log in for more thread options

totfit wrote:

> I agree totally with the views being a "downgrade". Also, even with

> the list view you could jump to the next month. Something you can no

> longer do. This seems at least for me to decrease funcitonality. I

> wish I would get over my obsession to have to make changes and just

> stick with what I have.

I don't have Q2010; but I think your "conclusions" (and "Jeff M"'s
comments/"conclusions") are premature ... and probably not indicative.

--

John Pollard

Posted by Bobster on October 16, 2009, 9:07 pm

Please log in for more thread options

> totfit wrote:

>> I agree totally with the views being a "downgrade". Also, even with

>> the list view you could jump to the next month. Something you can no

>> longer do. This seems at least for me to decrease funcitonality. I

>> wish I would get over my obsession to have to make changes and just

>> stick with what I have.

> I don't have Q2010; but I think your "conclusions" (and "Jeff M"'s

> comments/"conclusions") are premature ... and probably not indicative.

> --

> John Pollard

If you don't have Q2010 then why did you post a comment?

Posted by John Pollard on October 16, 2009, 9:39 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Bobster wrote:

>> totfit wrote:

>>> I agree totally with the views being a "downgrade". Also, even with

>>> the list view you could jump to the next month. Something you can no

>>> longer do. This seems at least for me to decrease funcitonality. I

>>> wish I would get over my obsession to have to make changes and just

>>> stick with what I have.

>> I don't have Q2010; but I think your "conclusions" (and "Jeff M"'s

>> comments/"conclusions") are premature ... and probably not

>> indicative.

> If you don't have Q2010 then why did you post a comment?

Like I said: because no one proved their point.

It is clear that you do not understand logic.

If you can't prove the claim, it doesn't matter what version you are
using, or what version I am using.

I'm still waiting for you to prove the point.

Apparently you are unable to do that (you definitely have not tried) ...
so you want to pretend that my question is the problem ... instead of your
inability to prove your case.

--

John Pollard