nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Quicken for Windows Facelift

JoelC

I have noticed that Quicken for Windows has started to receive a facelift starting with the Reports & Graphs Centre and Customize Reports.

I find the changes / new graphics to be minimal and lacking in terms of overall design especially when compared what has been rolled out for QMac (which I also use). I was hoping fro something much more drastic and modern.

I recognize that it is still VERY early days and that we should wait to see more before coming to a conclusion.

That said, I am curious as to what others think of these design / UI changes.

Thank you.

Find more posts tagged with

Windows

Font/Display

Display/UI

Comments

Chris_QPW

I was hoping fro something much more drastic and modern.

I wasn't. And this update proves what I believe, Quicken Windows is way too fragile for such changes. Whether it is the code or the programmer experience or both, what has happened is they have made those changes, and now neither the old nor the new dialogs behave completely correct.

I wish they had really done what was mostly requested. The main requests were to just enlarge the different areas so that people could see all the categories and such.

Instead, they did some of what you are suggesting, and we now have a mess that we will have hope will be fixed over time.

Everyone seems to want to make Quicken Windows into a "modern" program, when it clearly isn't.

What's more most people don't agree on what is "modern" in the first place. A modern version of a Windows program isn't a "Mac program". One of the reasons that Quicken Mac was rewritten is because the users were crying for a "Mac like" program instead of "Windows clone".

The two (Window and Mac GUIs) might have some similarities, but they aren't the same. In fact, even in just Windows one of the problems is that there are many different GUIs.

I remember a few years back when Quicken Inc finally got around to "modernizing" some of Quicken, because it was the number one request by the user. And then it came out and tons of complaints came out. Why? Windows 10 had come out and "flat" was now in, but the Quicken users wanted "Modern, but not Windows 10 flat" whatever that would mean.

There are tons of things that Quicken Windows need updating because they have been neglected. The tax planner, the lifetime planner, working better with high resolution screens, and multiple display machines.

JoelC

@Chris_QPW

I wasn't. And this update proves what I believe, Quicken Windows is way too fragile for such changes. Whether it is the code or the programmer experience or both, what has happened is they have made those changes, and now neither the old nor the new dialogs behave completely correct

And that is a very sad statement. For something as important as finances the code should be bullet proof with the look, feel and functionality modern. Particularly when one subscription pricing to the equation.

What's more most people don't agree on what is "modern" in the first place. A modern version of a Windows program isn't a "Mac program". One of the reasons that Quicken Mac was rewritten is because the users were crying for a "Mac like" program instead of "Windows clone".

Agree. To me modern in the Windows contact is something that looks clean, flat and functional (i.e., a minimalist approach if you will).

The two (Window and Mac GUIs) might have some similarities, but they aren't the same. In fact, even in just Windows one of the problems is that there are many different GUIs.

Agree. To me this is one of my biggest complaints, it looks like patchwork rather a cohesive pruprose built application.

There are tons of things that Quicken Windows need updating because they have been neglected. The tax planner, the lifetime planner, working better with high resolution screens, and multiple display machines.

Agree noting I would add the bugs / functional issue we have been discussed for the last few months.

To me, it needs a serious overhaul, something we are not likely to get.

[Deleted User]

@JoelC - I would take these changes "at face value" without surmising what the end result should, would, or could be. For me, as an end user, the changes are working as intended. There are other issues that are independent of the new interface that still need to be addressed, but I don't think the new interface (or "Early Access") was meant to fix those. I think the new interface was simply to give the "Reports & Graphs Center" and "Customize Reports" a new look and make them easier to use. If the new interface doesn't work for the end user or causes issues, then I would hope that the end user would provide appropriate feedback to Quicken. Worst case scenario, the user can at any time switch back to the old interface. And again, for me, the new interface has been working well.

Chris_QPW

One more point. I have had arguments with people that seem to feel that all they have to do it get the attention of the right person in Quicken Inc (or in the past Intuit) and explain things and then everything will be fixed.

For a logical person like me, that makes no sense. The person I'm thinking of was talking about a known problem that had been there for years and was "core" to Quicken. So, it would be impossible to find the person that he was looking for because the person would have to either be incompetent (didn't know about a major problem) or it was impractical/technically impossible to do.

That is a long-winded way of saying I believe in looking at past performance of people, and that is how I judge what I believe they are capable (or willing) to do, instead of pipe dreams like this person and others would like.

Along with all the other forgotten features that have been neglected, I point to "new features" that have already shown the same "make it modern", but not following through behavior from Quicken Windows development.

Quicken Windows has a Home "widget" system that Quicken Mac can only dream of. Yes, I know that you find parts of it lacking, but let's compare that to the "new dashboard". The new dashboard is "modern", but it is 1/50th of being a complete replacement of the old. I'm sure the intent was to replace the old one, but there isn't any way they are going to put in the time for that. And poor Quicken Mac only has the "new dashboard".

Bottom line is, IF they actually start what you requested, there is no way they will finish it for all of Quicken Windows and as such, not to mention Microsoft will put out a new standard GUI long before that time. They simply don't have the resources to do anything more than what they are already doing, and that is a piece mill updating and new get the "current new GUI".

And that is a very sad statement. For something as important as finances the code should be bullet proof with the look, feel and functionality modern. Particularly when one subscription pricing to the equation.

I personally see no reason that the "look and feel" has to be bullet proof (or even modern) for a financial program. It needs to be functional not pretty. If you get the pretty, great, but that shouldn't be the first concern. It is a concern for Quicken Inc because they want to sell to people that will pick by "pretty", but not to me. And I'm sure that is why they do at least in part try to cater to requests like this.

I think that the Lifetime planner needs a face lift, but I'm definitely sure that most people would like the RMD year to be updated first. It has been years since they changed the law that changed that date from 70 1/2 to 72, and it has yet to be changed.

JoelC

@QuickenUserPSP agreed, this is exactly why in my OP I stated that "…it is still VERY early days and that we should wait to see more before coming to a conclusion….".

JoelC

@Chris_QPW

I personally see no reason that the "look and feel" has to be bullet proof (or even modern) for a financial program. It needs to be functional not pretty. If you get the pretty, great, but that shouldn't be the first concern. It is a concern for Quicken Inc because they want to sell to people that will pick by "pretty", but not to me. And I'm sure that is why they do at least in part try to cater to requests like this.

Fair enough. I agree accurate, fully functional and reliable take precedent over "look and feel".

I think that the Lifetime planner needs a face lift, but I'm definitely sure that most people would like the RMD year to be updated first. It has been years since they changed the law that changed that date from 70 1/2 to 72, and it has yet to be changed.

I would be happy to hav some of teh functionality that the US has that I — as a Canadian — do not have!

Chris_QPW

And I believe that some people using the US version would like to have some of the Canadian features. For instance, currency exchange history instead of just the current exchange rate. Also, the US version can only import in USD, whereas at least for QFX files the Canadian version can import in other currencies.

Chris_QPW

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20415421#Comment_20415421

Let me state one thing. A lot of people think that Quicken Inc isn't listening to their requests, but I do think they are. And they do generally want the same things, to modernize the GUI and to clean up its functionality where the list boxes and such are too small. But resources are limited. And as such, what is much more likely to happen is that "As you have to change/add something, if possible, use new GUI controls."

In my opinion Quicken Windows is never going to get a "full facelift", but it will continue to get parts redone in whatever the latest Microsoft fad is currently being pushed.

JoelC

@Chris_QPW fair point, I suppose we woul dliek to a version that allows / incldudes everything. Welcome to human nature.

JoelC

@Chris_QPW

In my opinion Quicken Windows is never going to get a "full facelift", but it will continue to get parts redone in whatever the latest Microsoft fad is currently being pushed.

Fair enough. I suppose it will always be a game of catchup. I just wish that whatever they build / fix that they make it fully functionality and mathematically accurate and consistent.