Quicken for Mac 2017 v4.4.1 Released

Quicken Marcus

Snoopy FC said:

With respect to budget printing capabilities, I appreciate the scaling feature, and think things could be improved by allowing the user to select what to print.  You'll find more details on this idea here: https://getsatisfaction.com/quickencommunity/topics/add-ability-to-choose-months-yearly-data-for-budget-prints-reports

Thanks, that helps a lot.  Those are all really good reasons.  We also want to create an ability to compare budgets year over year and/or quarter over quarter and I'm guessing this would help with the first case.

Quicken Marcus

Quicken Marcus said:

Interesting idea.  So if I'm understanding this request correctly, you want to have a key command to see the split pop-over instead of being forced to pop open the edit view.

Great discussion.  Thanks guys.

RickO

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

Thanks Marcus. If the accept-before-entry workflow is added, I hope it's optional. I like the way it is and would find that unnecessarily cumbersome (and I'm an old guy!).

RickO

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

Yes.

smayer97

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

Personally I prefer always creating a back-up automatically but I do know there are numerous users that would prefer a reminder so they can decide if/when a back-up is necessary.

(If you find this reply helpful, please be sure to click "Like", so others will know, thanks.)

Unknown

Pineman said:

Sorry if I appear a bit thick but I'd like a bit of advice about the new backup facility.

Prior to the update my Quicken Data File was stored in Documents
and backed up to Library/Application Support/Quicken 2017/Backups.

Following the update my Quicken Data File is still stored in
Documents BUT a new folder has appeared in Library/Application Support/Quicken
2017/Backups, called Automatic Backups, which contains a backup made each time I
quit. There is still an old backup file in the Backups folder.

 Is this what is intended and are there any other backups
being created somewhere else?

Thanks for the explanation.

Happy Christmas from your UK customer!

J. Holmes

I am excited to see that Quicken changed course and introduced the New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator.  The ability to mouseover the indicator and determine the number of transactions is also a unique feature.  Great job!


Hopefully we will see other QW features e.g. debt reduction planner and loan amortization.  

J. Holmes

I am excited to see that Quicken changed course and introduced the New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator.  The ability to mouseover the indicator and determine the number of transactions is also a unique feature.  Great job!


Hopefully we will see other QW features e.g. debt reduction planner and loan amortization.  

Snoopy FC

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

I agree with smayer97 - automatic without prompting is preferable.  The current setup accomplishes this.  

Robert B

There is a design problem with Payee maintenance.  Payees change their name from time to time and QM2017 v4.4.1, and earlier, will not allow it even though this pop up window says you can.  
So, as an alternative, I created a new payee with the correct name and tried to merge the two, it always wants to use the old incorrect payee name to merge with.  We need to be able to set the predominate payee to merge with.  Notice the message says you can rename after merging, not true. Further more, I have edited payee's zip codes over the past year to put a dash back between the 5th and 6th digit, i.e. 68501-2519.  The import from QM2007 to QM2015 to QM2016 removed it.  Which import removed it I have no idea, regardless it disappeared and after putting it back it seems to be disappearing again.  I do believe the USPS accepted format is xxxxx-xxxx.

RickO

Robert B said:

There is a design problem with Payee maintenance.  Payees change their name from time to time and QM2017 v4.4.1, and earlier, will not allow it even though this pop up window says you can.  
So, as an alternative, I created a new payee with the correct name and tried to merge the two, it always wants to use the old incorrect payee name to merge with.  We need to be able to set the predominate payee to merge with.  Notice the message says you can rename after merging, not true. Further more, I have edited payee's zip codes over the past year to put a dash back between the 5th and 6th digit, i.e. 68501-2519.  The import from QM2007 to QM2015 to QM2016 removed it.  Which import removed it I have no idea, regardless it disappeared and after putting it back it seems to be disappearing again.  I do believe the USPS accepted format is xxxxx-xxxx.

What you describe works fine for non-online payees. However, Quicken prevents changing the name of an online payee to preserve the integrity of the bill pay transactions.

There is a workaround however, to change the name of an already-used online payee:

1) Open the Payees window (menu Window > Payee)
2) Create a new online payee with the new name and other details (click the plus sign) [like you already did]
3) In the main window, select the Banking group transactions window
4) In the search box, upper right, click the magnifying glass and select Payee as the search field
5) Enter the old payee name in the search field
6) You will now be displaying all (and only) the transactions for the old payee name; select them all (Cmd-A)
7) select menu File > Get Info
8) In the Transaction Info window, change the name in the payee field from the old to the new payee name, then click OK
9) Go back to the Payees window and you will see the old name now shows as Unused. You may now delete it.

I don't recommend doing this while the payee has any pending transactions that have not been paid and downloaded. There may be unintended consequences in this case.

RickO

Robert B said:

There is a design problem with Payee maintenance.  Payees change their name from time to time and QM2017 v4.4.1, and earlier, will not allow it even though this pop up window says you can.  
So, as an alternative, I created a new payee with the correct name and tried to merge the two, it always wants to use the old incorrect payee name to merge with.  We need to be able to set the predominate payee to merge with.  Notice the message says you can rename after merging, not true. Further more, I have edited payee's zip codes over the past year to put a dash back between the 5th and 6th digit, i.e. 68501-2519.  The import from QM2007 to QM2015 to QM2016 removed it.  Which import removed it I have no idea, regardless it disappeared and after putting it back it seems to be disappearing again.  I do believe the USPS accepted format is xxxxx-xxxx.

Oh, and regarding the dash in the zip code, it just doesn't matter. USPS will handle it fine either way.

RickO

Robert B said:

There is a design problem with Payee maintenance.  Payees change their name from time to time and QM2017 v4.4.1, and earlier, will not allow it even though this pop up window says you can.  
So, as an alternative, I created a new payee with the correct name and tried to merge the two, it always wants to use the old incorrect payee name to merge with.  We need to be able to set the predominate payee to merge with.  Notice the message says you can rename after merging, not true. Further more, I have edited payee's zip codes over the past year to put a dash back between the 5th and 6th digit, i.e. 68501-2519.  The import from QM2007 to QM2015 to QM2016 removed it.  Which import removed it I have no idea, regardless it disappeared and after putting it back it seems to be disappearing again.  I do believe the USPS accepted format is xxxxx-xxxx.

Oh, and regarding the dash in the zip code, it just doesn't matter. USPS will handle it fine either way.

jacobs

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

I prefer auto-backup without prompting. But keeping only a fixed 5 backups is problematic. I sometimes open and quit Quicken 5 times in a single day; more typically, I might open and quit 5 times within a week. I think the default should be 10, and there should be the option to set the value higher if users prefer.

(I also have Time Machine backing up my Mac, and periodically make SuperDuper whole disk backups to one of two portable drives I rotate storing at my office. In my book, there can never be too many backups, as long as there is disk space available. the hard disk on my laptop dies this past summer. I installed a new drive, and went to restore from my SuperDuper backup -- an edit failed part way through with a read error on the backup drive. I switched to my older full disk backup -- and it, too, had a read error and could not complete. I finally pulled everything I needed from a combination of my Time Machine backup and on of the whole disk backups, but it was nerve-wracking as all my photos and music which live on that Mac hung in the balance. I thought I had more than enough redundant backups, but I almost didn't have enough! I digressed, but the point is that backups are your life savers, and you shouldn't skimp on them unless you're out of space or disk drives.)

jacobs

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

I prefer auto-backup without prompting. But keeping only a fixed 5 backups is problematic. I sometimes open and quit Quicken 5 times in a single day; more typically, I might open and quit 5 times within a week. I think the default should be 10, and there should be the option to set the value higher if users prefer.

(I also have Time Machine backing up my Mac, and periodically make SuperDuper whole disk backups to one of two portable drives I rotate storing at my office. In my book, there can never be too many backups, as long as there is disk space available. the hard disk on my laptop dies this past summer. I installed a new drive, and went to restore from my SuperDuper backup -- an edit failed part way through with a read error on the backup drive. I switched to my older full disk backup -- and it, too, had a read error and could not complete. I finally pulled everything I needed from a combination of my Time Machine backup and on of the whole disk backups, but it was nerve-wracking as all my photos and music which live on that Mac hung in the balance. I thought I had more than enough redundant backups, but I almost didn't have enough! I digressed, but the point is that backups are your life savers, and you shouldn't skimp on them unless you're out of space or disk drives.)

smayer97

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

Agreed that is should be optional just like in QWin...but it should be implemented in QMac too like it exists in QM2007. Glad to hear it is at least on the horizon.

Robert B

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

No need to re-invent the wheel, see QM2007 options/preferences regarding backups.

Unknown

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

The autobackup is horrible. Why limit to 5? it is my hard drive? I just had 30 files deleted! Give us the ability to change how many we keep.

RCinNJ

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

The auto backups are saved in a separate folder: "Automatic Backups" inside the folder "Backups" (where your manual backups were saved). None of your backup files should have been deleted. You can continue to save backups manually whenever you want outside of the Automatic Backups folder just as you have been doing.

smayer97

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

You may want to also add your VOTE to Add More Options to Automatic Back-ups.

First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click VOTE at the top of THAT page, so your will vote count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers.

(If you find this reply helpful, please be sure to click "Like", so others will know, thanks.)

Unknown

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

The blue dots are a step in the right direction - so thank you.  That said, the red flags are still very much needed and will continue to be essential to my full transition to Quicken Mac.  Also, for whatever its worth, I don't view the need for the accept-before-entry to be a generational issue.  I view it more to be a precision issue.  Several times a year I uncover errors and potential fraud/mistakes in downloaded transactions.  I find the red flag process to be very helpful in maintaining the integrity of my registers and as a means to screen transaction before acceptance, rather than after.  While I guess this could be described as cumbersome (while in reality it takes very little time), I think that red flag process is simply a good accounting practice.  It may not be for everyone, but I think it will be very important to a great many.   

RickO

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

I think some of the difference in the before/after acceptance preference people have may be in whether people enter transactions before or after they download. I enter all my transactions before downloading. So I expect every downloaded transaction to match. If one doesn't match, then that stands out and I deal with it. No need for an acceptance workflow prior to that for me.

I can see that if you rely on the downloads to do the initial transaction entries in your registers, then having an acceptance workflow makes a whole lot of sense. Especially since each one would need review of the category, entry of memo/notes, etc.

cneal

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

Perhaps keep a max of two auto backups a day, the last time you exit and the time before. I guess you could call it two grandfathered backups per day. So the auto backups would always cover a minimum of three days without a mutitude of configuration flags since every flag is a test point before a release.

Just a thought.

Concordman

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

Coming from QW the blue dot is a welcome upgrade. Makes it easier to determine which accounts  have downloads & need attention. If the blue dot could be cleared once the transactions are reviewed that would be nice but its definitely not a show stopper.

Robert B

Major problems with v4.4.1 bill paying:
1.  Many of my online bill pay setups, I have been paying for months, have had online bill pay turned off, as in never was configured for online payment.  You control click the line item and pay on next update is greyed out.  You must go into edit details and choose online payment all over again.  Some caused by a ten day lead time now required, others not.
2.  The program crashed when I changed the date of a future scheduled payment.  On the first attempt it crashed, on the second attempt it did not, report sent via the popup that occurred when I restarted the program.
3.  I can no longer pay a bill at SunTrust Bank with a 7 day lead time.  It now forces me to use a 10 day lead time.  The bank only requires a 4 day lead time, I went to SunTrust site and payed a bill I was unable to pay on 12/31/16, today is 12/24/16, and could have payed it on 12/28/16.  Ten days is not required and is too much.
I am not going to get onto a tirade, you can probably read my mind!

RickO

Marcus...

Please add my request to have the option to use Posted Date instead of Entered Date work an an account-by-account basis (instead of globally as it is now).

Here's why: I find the option VERY useful for accounts that I reconcile monthly against the paper statement. It really eliminates the need to fiddle with transaction dates to make things line up.

However, I reconcile my checking account every few days against the online balance. Doing it this way means the location of the transaction in the timeline really doesn't matter. But with a checking account, checks are sometimes not cashed for weeks or even months after they are written. The Posted Date preference causes these checks to pop up near the top of the register, and this gets the check numbers out of sequence. So if it were possible, I would turn off the Posted Date option for my checking account, but leave it on for all my credit card accounts.

Thanks!

smayer97

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

@Rueg exactly...And there are other reasons I have highlighted where this process catches or highlights discrepancies. It is exactly a precision/accuracy thing, not a generational thing. If it does not work for someone, the idea is the can opt in/out just like in QWin.

smayer97

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

@RickO in my case, my main banking account, and a few others, have most transactions populated with scheduled transactions (QM2017 still lacks the auto-enter scheduled transactions) (see Add option to automatically enter scheduled transactions/bill reminders if you want to add your vote for this) but I have other accounts where I rely on my downloaded data and compare it to my paper and electronic records (receipts and statements). So I use both methods. I have over 100 active accounts, so I have varied needs, so manual entry of all my transactions is not pragmatic. To me, this workflow is very much needed for easier management. 

RickO

smayer97 (QM2007, CDN user since '92) said:

Nice new features. Great that these items are being addressed. I only wish they were implemented completely.

Auto-Backup: why could it not be implemented with the option to choose how many backup copies, like in QM2007?

New Transaction Account Sidebar Indicator: What is the criteria that makes the blue dot go away? Without that piece of information how are we to know what it means, if it is working correctly, or what the process is to manage or control it?

Preference to Turn Off Auto-Opening Splits: why could this not be implemented to control separately the behaviour when open a split vs when to close a split, like in QM2007, and how it was requested 3 1/2 months ago here: Expanding split transactions  and detailed here?

I like some of these improvements but I would strongly suggest that when you implement a feature that has existed before, like in QM2007, that you make it at least as complete as the original, If you choose to improve on it and add more, that is great. But to deliver less than the original is simply frustrating! I can understand delivering a feature in multiple stages when it is more complex but I just do not see the reason for these partial implementations, especially if the feature is a small one. 

I do actually rely on download to enter transactions in my investment accounts.  I don't find the current method to be lacking; in fact it seems quite streamlined. But, I'm all for adding a separate acceptance workflow, as long as it's made optional.

I find in my banking accounts, when a transaction downloads that matches one of my scheduled transactions, it matches even if I haven't marked the scheduled transactions instance as paid. This effectively auto-enters the scheduled transaction. That works fine for me too, as is.

smayer97

Concordman said:

 Adding additional backups when no further data has been entered is not useful. Something to think about for future modifications:)

As soon as you hard code the options you will always dissatisfy some users. It is not possible to anticipate every viable and reasonable way people want/need to work. And it is not necessary for such a simply feature. Instead, providing the flexibility for users to choose allows all users to be satisfied, to allow them to work as they need.

The wording I provided above achieves that, especially in combination with a 'do automatically' or 'remind me' option, as I define in the link for Adding More Options to Automatic Back-ups.

(If you find this reply helpful, please be sure to click "Like", so others will know, thanks.)