Quicken Mac function more like Quicken WIndows

TFD612

I hate the interface of the Mac product compared to the Windows product. The register layout and downloaded transactions are so much better in windows. I dont like how the Mac product puts your downloaded transactions directly into the register, unlike the windows product where it separates them.

The only thing I like about the Mac product is it connects to more institutions than the windows product, which i don't understand either.

If something like Security Benefit is available for the Mac, why isn't it also available for Windows? Especially when the product was designed for Windows to begin with.

Balance out your development to make both products better!

How can we get the same functionality and layout in both platforms?

smayer97

I'll just answer one of the questions by saying add your vote to

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7309379/restore-transactions-downloading-acceptance-and-matching-workflow-to-quicken-mac-317-legacy-votes

Chris_QPW

Yeah, I think Quicken Mac should go back to the state where the number one complaint was "Make Quicken Mac a proper Mac program instead of a 'ported Windows program'". That would please all of the Windows converts that don't want to learn anything new even if it is better.

And I think for sure Quicken Mac should add the "Downloading Acceptance and Matching workflow" so they can have two different systems that are either always asking for features in the Downloaded Transactions tab that are already in the register, or have the default be the flow be into the register have bugs that never get fixed, but because of none of the SuperUsers use and just push to try to get people to use the Downloaded Transactions tab instead. After all, having flexibility at the cost of complexity and bugs is much better than having one system that works fine.

On the subject of why Quicken Mac now has support for more financial institutions than Quicken Windows a lot of that has to do with the history of the two different products. And some of it actually depends on the support and lack of support of some features in both products. But also depends on just what the financial institutions approve.

EDIT: And Quicken Mac development should certainly get 50% (or more) of the development budget, it isn't like the fact that it only about 1/3 of the customer base that should matter.

Time and Time again I see the call to make Quicken Mac "equal" to Quicken Windows, with no regard for the fact of all the flaws that Quicken Windows has. Yes, Quicken Windows has tons of features, but one thing I certainly learned when trying to show how to use it to my wife was that "to be a 'good' Quicken Windows user that has the least number of problems." the first thing you have to learn is what features to never touch!

Chris_QPW

BTW back when Quicken Mac was rewritten from what I have read these are the main reasons it was done.

1. Apple dropping support for the processors/APIs being used (which in fact took MANY years to actually play out).
2. The developers said that the register code had gotten so complex, and bug ridden and unsupportable.
3. The customers complained that Quicken Mac just looked like (and probably was) a "Windows port". And one of the main design goals was to create a Mac product that had similar features, but wasn't just a port of the features, was to be one that was carefully thought out to be a better cleaner approach that was a true Mac application.

Jon

I started using Quicken Mac back in 2000. To me it didn't look anything like Quicken Windows (which I had been using for a decade); what it looked like was a 1990's era Mac program. It fit right in on a system running Mac OS 9 or earlier, but on a Mac OS X system it stuck out like a sore thumb because the UI design language for Mac OS X was completely different. By 2007 I think it was the only program I was using that still hadn't modernized for Mac OS X and it showed.

Personally I like Quicken Mac's user interface the way it is, and would not be interested in seeing it replaced with something more Windows-like. I don't think there's any chance of that happening, though, so I'm not concerned.

Chris_QPW

I should point out @Jon my "More Mac like comment/not a port of Windows" is from an "outsider's point of view". As in the reason I came to look at Quicken forums in the first place is that I had a bad experience with Quicken Windows 2007 (which came out in 2006) as such I was looking at the forums at that time, and notice that was one of the complaints that was posted quite often.

So, I guess we have to take that as the normal "user exaggeration or mis categorizing". The rest comes from posts by the actual developers that did the first rewrite and by SuperUsers like @jacobs that had direct feedback on this from them.

I don't always like the decisions that Quicken Inc (and Intuit before them) make, but I do agree with them that the customer isn't always right. That they will push for things that will make the product less maintainable and bug ridden. People tend to think that you can just add complexity to a system and because you call it "optional" that makes that complexity either go away or less complex. It is just the opposite.

I have used both the in "register" and the Downloaded Transactions tab in Quicken Widows "successfully". I tend to like the in-register approach more, but both systems work fine. The real problem I have with this kind of discussion is that I can see what it means in Quicken Windows to have both. Neither is served to the best that might be if only one was supported.