William said: I have no reason to roll-back other than concern about why R37.25 disappeared. Was it withdrawn for an important reason? Seems to add to the chaos of the Schwab fiasco.
bhinkston said: @william Is it safe to say you are still having problems with downloading Charles Schwab? The support agents are really having a tough time right now. They want to help, but they have no more new information than I already have. They did say that the Charles Schwab issues continue, there is not a clear resolution as of yet. It would be great to have a status screen of some sort for the Schwab issues more than just try these steps. I have tried them 25 times (that is not an exaggeration) and they still don't work to fix the problem.@sherlock Perhaps as a SuperUser you could help with this request?
Rob41 said: @William @Sherlock I came here with the same question as the OP - I installed the Mondo patch to R37.25 when it was available on the Mondo download page last week, and was concerned that now it has been pulled and only R36.41 is being offered. I noticed this edit to the bottom of the R37 announcement page that Sherlock linked to: "The release of R37.25 has been paused and is no longer available for download directly within Quicken." However, they still provide a download link to the file in the next paragraph. Since my Schwab stuff is working ok now (my post about it is here: https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7902157/schwab-connection-method-switch-finally-out-of-the-woods-maybe/) I don't mind staying put on R37.25, I just hoped for some reassurance that I won't be stranded on it. Hopefully once Quicken resumes the rollout of R37, it will get me back on the bandwagon of prompting me about new product updates/releases. @Quicken Chris can you confirm anything about this?
Sherlock said: Quicken will be resuming R37 when they have some confidence in the quality of the release. It's their normal procedure to stage a new release to a limited number of users at a time to mitigate the risk to the entire community of users. If they find there are significant issues with R37.25, they'll push a new R37. With the Schwab transition issues occurring concurrently, it may take a bit longer to assess the quality of the R37 release.
Sherlock said: For many users, R36.38, R36.41, R36.45, or R37.25 will be sufficient. Most of the issues have had nothing to do with the Quicken and everything to do with Intuit and Schwab. The duplicate download issue occurs when the FITID algorithm changes - blame Schwab. The good news is that it should be a one-time occurrence and is easier to manage than in the past.
bhinkston said: > @Sherlock said: > For many users, R36.38, R36.41, R36.45, or R37.25 will be sufficient. Most of the issues have had nothing to do with the Quicken and everything to do with Intuit and Schwab. > > The duplicate download issue occurs when the FITID algorithm changes - blame Schwab. The good news is that it should be a one-time occurrence and is easier to manage than in the past.@Sherlock Thanks for your continued posts. Per @retird Quicken keeps implying this is fixed... but, the problems are not. I'm not trying to sound like I'm complaining, but I don't want to spend any more time trying to fix the problems on supposed fixes that keep getting released. I'm totally fine with waiting for a while ... per your earlier post ... until WCE+ settles down. But, I'd like some idea from Quicken is if this is a few days, weeks or months when SPECIFIC problems are address. There's enough of us out here having problems that I have to believe the Quicken tech team are looking at those SPECIFIC issues and finding resolutions. The support teams have no specific alternatives to fixing my problems then I've already done more than a few times. So, now, its up to new code releases or other more drastic measures to fix. Thanks for your continued comments.
Sherlock said: Given the inherent unreliability of the Express Web Connect connection method, it may continue to be a bumpy ride. If you're not willing to accept the unreliability of the Express Web Connect connection method, I suggest you either maintain the Schwab accounts manually or switch to a financial institution that supports the Direct Connect or Web Connect connection methods.
Given the inherent unreliability of the Express Web Connect connection method, it may continue to be a bumpy ride. If you're not willing to accept the unreliability of the Express Web Connect connection method, I suggest you either maintain the Schwab accounts manually or switch to a financial institution that supports the Direct Connect or Web Connect connection methods.
NotACPA said: Q continues to offer EWC because, for some Financial Institutions, that's the ONLY download method that they accept.And, one of the primary reasons for the unreliability of EWC is that, frequently, it uses "screen scraping", and when the FI changes the screen without sufficient (or any) notice to Q/Intuit ... the EWC download fails.
retird said: NotACPA said: Q continues to offer EWC because, for some Financial Institutions, that's the ONLY download method that they accept.And, one of the primary reasons for the unreliability of EWC is that, frequently, it uses "screen scraping", and when the FI changes the screen without sufficient (or any) notice to Q/Intuit ... the EWC download fails. Yes, I know why institutions use EWC. They don't want to pay the cost associated with Direct Connect. And Quicken depends on Intuit's 3rd part server. Why does Quicken not have it own server and take Intuit out of the loop and stabilize EWC? Think it all boils down to the bottom line... money...Schwab said Quicken had 1 year notice... is that not enough notice?
Sherlock said: retird said: NotACPA said: Q continues to offer EWC because, for some Financial Institutions, that's the ONLY download method that they accept.And, one of the primary reasons for the unreliability of EWC is that, frequently, it uses "screen scraping", and when the FI changes the screen without sufficient (or any) notice to Q/Intuit ... the EWC download fails. Yes, I know why institutions use EWC. They don't want to pay the cost associated with Direct Connect. And Quicken depends on Intuit's 3rd part server. Why does Quicken not have it own server and take Intuit out of the loop and stabilize EWC? Think it all boils down to the bottom line... money...Schwab said Quicken had 1 year notice... is that not enough notice? What makes you think Quicken would do a better job maintaining EWC than Intuit? The only advantage Quicken would have is direct control of the resources required to maintain EWC. The financial cost to Quicken would be substantially higher and EWC would still be less secure and less reliable than Direct Connect and Web Connect. I wonder if Quicken should charge users directly for their use of EWC the way some financial institutions charge for use of their Direct Connect servers.
retird said: Sherlock said: retird said: NotACPA said: Q continues to offer EWC because, for some Financial Institutions, that's the ONLY download method that they accept.And, one of the primary reasons for the unreliability of EWC is that, frequently, it uses "screen scraping", and when the FI changes the screen without sufficient (or any) notice to Q/Intuit ... the EWC download fails. Yes, I know why institutions use EWC. They don't want to pay the cost associated with Direct Connect. And Quicken depends on Intuit's 3rd part server. Why does Quicken not have it own server and take Intuit out of the loop and stabilize EWC? Think it all boils down to the bottom line... money...Schwab said Quicken had 1 year notice... is that not enough notice? What makes you think Quicken would do a better job maintaining EWC than Intuit? The only advantage Quicken would have is direct control of the resources required to maintain EWC. The financial cost to Quicken would be substantially higher and EWC would still be less secure and less reliable than Direct Connect and Web Connect. I wonder if Quicken should charge users directly for their use of EWC the way some financial institutions charge for use of their Direct Connect servers. I was told by my bank that they would have to pay fees to Quicken to go to Direct Connect and thus the charge to the customer... is that not correct?
Sherlock said: retird said: Sherlock said: retird said: NotACPA said: Q continues to offer EWC because, for some Financial Institutions, that's the ONLY download method that they accept.And, one of the primary reasons for the unreliability of EWC is that, frequently, it uses "screen scraping", and when the FI changes the screen without sufficient (or any) notice to Q/Intuit ... the EWC download fails. Yes, I know why institutions use EWC. They don't want to pay the cost associated with Direct Connect. And Quicken depends on Intuit's 3rd part server. Why does Quicken not have it own server and take Intuit out of the loop and stabilize EWC? Think it all boils down to the bottom line... money...Schwab said Quicken had 1 year notice... is that not enough notice? What makes you think Quicken would do a better job maintaining EWC than Intuit? The only advantage Quicken would have is direct control of the resources required to maintain EWC. The financial cost to Quicken would be substantially higher and EWC would still be less secure and less reliable than Direct Connect and Web Connect. I wonder if Quicken should charge users directly for their use of EWC the way some financial institutions charge for use of their Direct Connect servers. I was told by my bank that they would have to pay fees to Quicken to go to Direct Connect and thus the charge to the customer... is that not correct? My understanding is the fees for the Direct Connect service are still paid to Intuit but all the financial institutions I use chose not to pass the cost on to their customers.
retird said:Think it all boils down to the bottom line... money...