|
Posted by sharx35 on January 14, 2008, 12:25 am
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
I know what you mean. Yesterday I installed Spybot. It slowed by system
riiiiiiiight down. So, off it came. AMD 3500+ with 2 gig of DDR2 memory.
> --
> 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