|
Posted by R. C. White on January 13, 2008, 9:37 pm
Please log in for more thread options Howdy, Neighbor.
We'll be in San Antonio for a couple of hours tomorrow. ;<)
> Now, I may be missing something,
> but I sure don't see what-- !?
Well, it might be:
> Ad-Aware, AVG, Windows Defender, NAT Firewall, Crap
> Cleaner (CCleaner), disk clean up (Windows) and defrag (Windows),
> etc., etc.
Your system is SO weighed down with protection that it has no time to run
Quicken! It's too busy running all that stuff.
Yes, I know. I used to run a lot of that, too. But now, I rely on just two
protectors. The first is Vista and all the security features built into
that, including the firewall and Windows Defender - on default settings.
But my most important protection is "practicing safe hex". You know the
drill: Don't visit unsafe web sites; don't open attachments you're not sure
about; etc. We all know them. The important part is to DO THEM!
Religiously!
I certainly don't recommend that you or most users "go bare". But it has
worked for me, and it gets rid of all that protection overload that would
otherwise be slowing down my computer. I've been computing for 30 years
last month, and I used Norton Utilities for about 15 of those years. But
Symantec never updated Norton Internet Security 2005 to handle 64-bit WinXP
or Vista, and the 06 version wouldn't work either, so I let my subscription
expire. And I don't miss NIS at all! No more fiddling with updated
definitions and automatic updates and tweaking the settings and all the
other make-work that went with keeping NIS up to date. Aahh! Such a
feeling of freedom! ;<)
Of course, it also helps that my rig was new just a year ago and the specs
are still pretty good: AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ CPU, 4 GB PC-6400 DDRII RAM,
4 SATA II hard drives totaling 920 GB (2 of them a 300 GB RAID 1 array).
And Vista Ultimate x64.
Yes, I know the risks of running bare, but in 30 years, I've never had a
virus and only a modest amount of adware and other annoyances. Spam
happens, but at a manageable volume, since my ISP filters out most of it.
My most important data files are backed up. I've installed Vista and my
applications so many times (especially during beta testing) that I know I
could do it again if necessary. I've made a conscious decision to accept
the risk of infection to gain the performance and freedom.
Your mileage may vary. ;^}
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Quicken 2008 Deluxe in Vista Ultimate x64)
>> Hi, Brad.
>>
>> > I do notice a significantly
>> > faster start-up when I lop off years I know I'm not going to go back
>>
>> "Significantly faster"? Just how big is your .qdf file, anyhow? I don't
>> think you've mentioned a number yet. You also haven't told us anything
>> about your hardware and operating system; maybe they have trouble keeping
>> up
>> with Quicken.
>>
>> My 17-year-old .qdf file is over 26 MB; the whole Quicken "file" is 34
>> MB.
>> From the time I click on the Quicken icon until the Cash Flow page
>> appears
>> is less than 4 seconds, even including the musical intro. Sometimes I
>> close
>> Quicken during the day, but often I just let it run in the background
>> while
>> I'm doing other things, like reading these newsgroups. Some applications
>> are slow to load, but not Quicken 2008 Deluxe!
>>
>> It would take me a lot of 4-second savings to offset the time I save by
>> having my 1990s transactions at my fingertips when I need to see when I
>> first visited a specific doctor or bought our TV set or water heater. I
>> don't need that information every day, but I do use it often.
>>
>> But it's your computer and your Quicken, so do it your way. ;^}
>>
>> RC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Brad:
>>
>> >> I think I did not make myself clear.
>> >> I was actually wondering if you had a compelling reason to "trim" your
>> >> Quicken file.
>> >> Many of us have HUGE files that go back decades.
>> >> Mine goes back to 1986.
>> >> I haven't noticed any performance degradation from having a >26MB QDF
>> >> file.
>> >> But, if you have your heart set on lopping off transactions, go for
>> >> it.
>>
>> >> Bob
>>
>> > Yes, I've read many of the posts that discuss multi-year registers.
>> > I'm a 5-year user, and not a patient man. I do notice a significantly
>> > faster start-up when I lop off years I know I'm not going to go back
>> > and look at any time soon and maybe never. 2006 has little relevance
>> > to my financial life today, especially after April 15. Sticking it in
>> > an archive folder for some remote possible future use, is much more
>> > appealing that sitting at my PC (on a daily basis) waiting the extra
>> > seconds for Q to be up and running (I'm not blessed with patience and
>> > I use Quicken daily, sometimes several times per day-- if there is an
>> > option to reduce load times on applications, even by a few seconds,
>> > I'm going to jump on it with both feet). . . BC- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi RC:
> I'm down the road from ya in Sunny San Antone !
> My qdf file is 11 MB. I'm running XP on a Dell PC circa 2004. I have
> 1 GB RAM. My processor is a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. I use a start-up
> manager to reduce all the crap applications that start without my
> permission. I run Ad-Aware, AVG, Windows Defender, NAT Firewall, Crap
> Cleaner (CCleaner), disk clean up (Windows) and defrag (Windows),
> etc., etc. I notice Quicken snapping to attention when I get rid of
> fund registries that I don't need. Now, I may be missing something,
> but I sure don't see what-- !?
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap