|
Posted by MaryL on September 13, 2009, 1:17 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> MaryL wrote:
>> I am using Quicken 2006 Deluxe, running under Vista Home Premium. I
>> have a number of automatic payments that I list in Scheduled
>> Transactions. Some of them show "EFT" under the "Num" column (and
>> that is what I want). However, several just leave the "Num" column
>> blank, and I have to manually add EFT each month. I can't see any
>> difference at all when I compare the correct list to the incorrect
>> list under Scheduled Transactions.
>> Does anyone know what would cause this difference, and what I need to
>> do to edit those that do not automatically display EFT?
>
> I do not have Q2006 installed; I tested with Q2005, Q2008 and Q2009.
>
> Since the Num field does not appear anywhere in a New scheduled
> transaction dialog or an Edit scheduled transaction dialog, I surmise that
> its value could only be set directly by Quicken (based on the transaction
> type, such as a transfer or a printed check), or indirectly by the user.
>
> If the transaction is not one of those types that Quicken forces the Num
> value for, it seems that in older Quicken versions you could specify the
> Num value of a scheduled transaction, if you created it by right-clicking
> an existing register transaction that had the desired Num value, and
> telling Quicken to schedule it.
>
> I was able to create a scheduled transaction that put EFT in the Num field
> when auto-entered in Q2005 by using the above approach. But that approach
> did not work in Q2008 or Q2009.
>
> So, it appears that at some point, Quicken lost the ability to specify the
> Num field contents for newly created scheduled transactions. I can't tell
> you whether Q2006 was the first version that could not schedule the Num
> field contents, but you should be able to tell easily enough.
>
> If Q2006 can not create a scheduled transaction with EFT in the Num field,
> then I suspect that your scheduled transactions that put EFT in the Num
> field were converted from an earlier version of Quicken.
>
> --
>
> John Pollard
>
Thanks. I will try your suggestions--and your "suspicion" in the last
paragraph may be correct. I don't remember exactly which transactions were
used in earlier versions, but at least some of them were. I have not been
able to see any difference at all when I simply compare the transactions
pages for the different entries.
This is not a major problem. I can easily add EFT to make the transactions
consistent, so it's really just a minor annoyance when Quicken treats the
entries differently.
Again, thanks for your help.
MaryL
|