lopisis1 said: I have been using Quicken for well over 10 years.
Doug12 said: Come on guys, it is long past time to upgrade the code to 64-bit
tom porterfield said: Hopefully some of the legacy code can be refactored as part of this as well.
lopisis1 said: File downloads from financial institutions take forever and nothing else can be done until it is finished. In this day and age multitasking is essential.
tom porterfield said: You say it will never happen. I can promise you that it either will happen, or the product will die.
Divemaster said: Wouldn't a 64 bit version only increase the addressable size of the program code? So I think unless the current version is around 4GB or bigger, would 64 bit version help? Now if a complete rewrite was done, I would bet Quicken would be faster. I was using Quicken back on DOS when living on the farm. If that code has just been added to and modified, well putting it nicely, it isn't going to be as efficient as a newly designed system. Reminds me of a program I once changed from a tape file for data, to an ISAM file and later to a Total database. What a mess that thing was to change just to keep up with state and federal regulations.
I have the same issuse, but I am running on Intel i7 12th gen CPU with 64 DDR5 ram Windows 11. When I run Quicken, and I check the task manager, one core is usually running 100% 4.someting GHz.
Oh, I forgot, but my is slight faster, just slightly around one second most of the time, you almost can finish "one thousand and one". Once awhile, it takes almost one minutes. I got Quicken under one minute by changing the power setting in Windows 11 Pro to performance, and fans are running full power, like a hair dryer. I think Microsoft is no longer supported e-core and p-core for 64Wow. Quiken is running like installed in a i386 computer.
You should switch to the Mac version as it is faster and uses a modern database. It has most Quicken Windows features but not all. But what you get in speed and modern interface more than compensates for the old 32-bit Windows version. I switched to the Mac version as of Aug 2024 and never looked back.
@Alexy
I absolutely REFUSE to pay for over-priced, proprietary, APPLE products (or Q's fawning of them). Particularly when they're feature-deficient in comparison to the Win counterparts.
You're welcome to waste your money any way that you want … but I won't slavishly follow.
Kind of ridiculous that they still don't compile for 64 bits.
At times it's extremely sluggish and everything on my modern computer slows down (Windows 11, Processor 13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1365U 1.80 GHz, Installed RAM 32.0 GB (31.6 GB usable).
This is long overdue.
Going to 64-bit isn't a magic bullet. There isn't anything in it that will magically speed up the current code just because you convert it to 64-bit, other than maybe a very marginal amount. The real performance gains would be found in rewriting core code that is currently performing badly. This just as possible in 32-bit as it is in 64-bit, actually more possible. It is pretty well known that there are core parts of Quicken that depend on code that aren't supported anymore and as such there isn't any 64-bit version them, and to change them out would require more work than Quicken Inc can muster.
Sounds right, from what I remember (been retired from IT system software 21 years now). 64 bit just allows bigger address spaces to process more data, I think you would have to change code to take advantage of that ability? But then now days I would be considered a dinosaur in the IT world, so take that with a grain of salt.
That is correct, and frankly I don't see much opportunity to take advantage of that extra address space without changing some very core parts of Quicken, which would be beyond what they can do with the personal they have and without disrupting the current user base and taking years to do it like the rewrite of Quicken Mac is taking.
People might not realize it but Quicken is already caching each register that you open, and still, it has more memory than it needs for such processes with just the 32-bit address space. I can't imagine what more they could cache.
Every test I have done to try to locate performance bottlenecks suggests that the problems aren't where most people think they are. For instance, people point out how old the database is. It could certainly use updating to be more robust, but from what I can see it performs quite well. For instance, it does well when running reports. If you think about an investment report, it needs to retrieve even more data than what would be for a single investment register. But when people report problems with performance it is almost always in the investment register (while at the same time the reports are fine).
There are also performance problems that seem to be network/Internet related, 64-bit isn't going to affect that. Then there are the problems that some people report where everything seems to run slow. Given that the majority of people don't have this problem clearly that isn't related to 32-bit/64-bit. What it is exactly is never really been pinned down other than in some cases a corrupted data file.
And the last category I would have state is just general GUI performance. That one I think is related to the fact that Quicken has so many different GUI libraries/interfaces. And for that one has to realize why this condition exists in the first place. Quicken has a ton of features, and still people want more. Quicken Inc doesn't have the resources to add such features, work on the bugs, and still have time to re-write parts of Quicken in the newer GUI libraries. For instance, the Tax Planner, parts of the Lifetime Planner, and a good portion of the Business "forms" are within in a library that has been around since about the late 1990s.
My perception is that Quicken's development staff is stretched pretty thin. In view of that, I think we need to be thoughtful in what we ask them to add/improve. 64-bit code looks to me like a "shiny new thing" (OK, not new) that isn't going to mean much in a practical sense.
Yes, Quicken's code is quite old and undoubtably contains hundreds of kludges. And the database is so obsolete that it's not even being maintained any more. Those are very good arguments for a complete rewrite. If they had started in 2021, it would have been done two years ago.
Maybe they've been waiting for an AI that could do it for them. Seems about time now.
