Use the features and functions set of QfM 2007 as the baseline requirement set for QfM2018+

Rich Waldschmidt · February 2018

As a former software development manager, I understand the desire of the software development team to "throw out the old spaghetti code and start with a clean slate," but I don't understand why they would throw out the existing requirements baseline, feature set, use cases, user stories and design patterns along the way.

QfM 2007 is a great program which satisfies many users - why not repeat the pattern in a more sustainable way, if you think the latter is possible. Once complete, I will transition from QfM 2007.

Scott Schmidt · February 2018

I couldn't agree with you more as a 20 year user of QM2007. The old version is so good in so many ways. Sure, the code is ancient, so update it, but look to QM2007 for guidance on what it does and how it does it. QM2007 feels like a professional tool in many ways, but QM2007 feels like an amateur attempt written by people who don't do accounting, finance, or investments. We don't need a SPENDING CLOUD! Come on!

smayer97 · February 2018

True...but the QMac team is working towards that. I too wish some cues came from QM2007 rather than trying to re-invent the way a feature works...

That said, what would be most useful to the development team is to identify the areas that need the most attention first, as they cannot cover all the areas at the same time.

First, I recommend you look at the following list to identify any features needed that you see missing in Quicken for Mac. You may want to add your vote to requests found on the
List of Obstacles and Hindrances for Migrating from QM2007 or QWin to Quicken for Mac.
This is a special list that draws attention to requests specifically related to this topic. Click the underlined link to visit that page to see the selection and add your VOTE to promote that list, to encourage others to vote. Then click on the links there to vote on the specific requests.

I also highly recommend that you browse through the IDEAS section of this forum and VOTE for the request of each of the missing features to be added back into Quicken for Mac....to help direct the priorities of the developers.

To do that click on this underlined link, following the instructions then VOTE to your heart's content:
Categorized List of IDEAS of Feature Requests and Enhancements to Vote On
or better yet the
EXPANDED List of Categorized IDEAS of Feature Requests and Enhancements to Vote On

This will help make the transition easier for you when you are ready to upgrade by seeking to have the features you are used to in QM2007 end up in the latest version.

Your VOTE matters!

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

jacobs · February 2018

When the first version of the modern Quicken for Mac came out in late 2014, the plan was to develop a minimally viable product to get started, and to continually release new iterations based on customer input. they very specifically set out not to recreate the exact same program they were replacing -- Quicken 2007 -- in part because they didn't have the resources to develop all the functionality of a 20 year-old program and in part because they didn't know which of any features were still important and needed. Some things in Quicken 2007 were developed they way they were due to limitations of the past -- eventing from the code database to how registers behaved. For instance, code for writing data to a floppy disk drive was clearly not needed any more. But did users really need a feature to archive prior years now that the size of the data file and database isn't a limitation? Did they need features simply out of force of habit or for bona fide usage reasons?

That gives you some idea why they didn't set out to create a carbon copy of Quicken 2007. In other cases, the developers -- none of whom were involved in cresting Quicken 2007 -- simply didn't understand why small features or functions in 2007 were there, or the significance of why they mattered for users. User feedback -- from the Report a Problem feature in the program to use voting on features here on this forum -- help inform the developers on the how, what and why, and the degree of urgency. Along the way, they needed to replace and update a lot of behind-the-scenes code to keep up with changing network security and changes to the macOS -- necessary but time-consuming programming work which doesn't visibly affect the user experience.

smayer97 · February 2018

jacobs said:
When the first version of the modern Quicken for Mac came out in late 2014, the plan was to develop a minimally viable product to get started, and to continually release new iterations based on customer input. they very specifically set out not to recreate the exact same program they were replacing -- Quicken 2007 -- in part because they didn't have the resources to develop all the functionality of a 20 year-old program and in part because they didn't know which of any features were still important and needed. Some things in Quicken 2007 were developed they way they were due to limitations of the past -- eventing from the code database to how registers behaved. For instance, code for writing data to a floppy disk drive was clearly not needed any more. But did users really need a feature to archive prior years now that the size of the data file and database isn't a limitation? Did they need features simply out of force of habit or for bona fide usage reasons?

That gives you some idea why they didn't set out to create a carbon copy of Quicken 2007. In other cases, the developers -- none of whom were involved in cresting Quicken 2007 -- simply didn't understand why small features or functions in 2007 were there, or the significance of why they mattered for users. User feedback -- from the Report a Problem feature in the program to use voting on features here on this forum -- help inform the developers on the how, what and why, and the degree of urgency. Along the way, they needed to replace and update a lot of behind-the-scenes code to keep up with changing network security and changes to the macOS -- necessary but time-consuming programming work which doesn't visibly affect the user experience.

BTW, when I say I wish they would take cues from QM2007, I simply mean (and have said it before) that when they DO implement a feature that QM2007 has, that they examine and understand the why and how it was implemented in QM2007 and apply what is still relevant...Not that they necessarily need to implement all the features...

Instead, what I often see is a feature partially implemented when there are other aspects that should have been implemented form the first attempt...Instead, users have to then provide feedback to request that the feature be extended to request more of what QM2007 does. This makes for a very frustrating experience.

If you examine any new feature that has been implemented, you will see that most of the time, there is something (and sometimes many things) missing from the original, that is/are actually useful and needed.

That said, I do not want to take away from the positive efforts the Mac team has made, but I do wish more thought went into the initial implementation of any feature.

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

Scott Schmidt · February 2018

jacobs said:
When the first version of the modern Quicken for Mac came out in late 2014, the plan was to develop a minimally viable product to get started, and to continually release new iterations based on customer input. they very specifically set out not to recreate the exact same program they were replacing -- Quicken 2007 -- in part because they didn't have the resources to develop all the functionality of a 20 year-old program and in part because they didn't know which of any features were still important and needed. Some things in Quicken 2007 were developed they way they were due to limitations of the past -- eventing from the code database to how registers behaved. For instance, code for writing data to a floppy disk drive was clearly not needed any more. But did users really need a feature to archive prior years now that the size of the data file and database isn't a limitation? Did they need features simply out of force of habit or for bona fide usage reasons?

That gives you some idea why they didn't set out to create a carbon copy of Quicken 2007. In other cases, the developers -- none of whom were involved in cresting Quicken 2007 -- simply didn't understand why small features or functions in 2007 were there, or the significance of why they mattered for users. User feedback -- from the Report a Problem feature in the program to use voting on features here on this forum -- help inform the developers on the how, what and why, and the degree of urgency. Along the way, they needed to replace and update a lot of behind-the-scenes code to keep up with changing network security and changes to the macOS -- necessary but time-consuming programming work which doesn't visibly affect the user experience.

I admit that my comments above are a bit harsh, and I want nothing more than for the new Quicken to succeed. I also appreciate the efforts of the Eric Dunn and the Quicken team, and I understand how difficult it must be to form a new standalone company around such a product with the need to be successful from the start. I subscribe to the new Quicken, but still don't use it everyday as I do with QM2007. It's just not quite all there yet. I'm cheering for the Company, and holding out hope that it will eventually be as good or better than the original. Then I'll switch, unless some OS update/incompatibility forces me to do it sooner.

smayer97 · February 2018

jacobs said:
When the first version of the modern Quicken for Mac came out in late 2014, the plan was to develop a minimally viable product to get started, and to continually release new iterations based on customer input. they very specifically set out not to recreate the exact same program they were replacing -- Quicken 2007 -- in part because they didn't have the resources to develop all the functionality of a 20 year-old program and in part because they didn't know which of any features were still important and needed. Some things in Quicken 2007 were developed they way they were due to limitations of the past -- eventing from the code database to how registers behaved. For instance, code for writing data to a floppy disk drive was clearly not needed any more. But did users really need a feature to archive prior years now that the size of the data file and database isn't a limitation? Did they need features simply out of force of habit or for bona fide usage reasons?

That gives you some idea why they didn't set out to create a carbon copy of Quicken 2007. In other cases, the developers -- none of whom were involved in cresting Quicken 2007 -- simply didn't understand why small features or functions in 2007 were there, or the significance of why they mattered for users. User feedback -- from the Report a Problem feature in the program to use voting on features here on this forum -- help inform the developers on the how, what and why, and the degree of urgency. Along the way, they needed to replace and update a lot of behind-the-scenes code to keep up with changing network security and changes to the macOS -- necessary but time-consuming programming work which doesn't visibly affect the user experience.

I'm hoping it does not come to that...but as a fallback, there may be the option to simply run a VM (Virtual Machine) with a Mac OS that still supports QM2007 simply to keep it running, though this is untested.

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

Use the features and functions set of QfM 2007 as the baseline requirement set for QfM2018+

Comments

Categories