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; } } }

window resized to 9/10ths of my screen?

szzz

I was attempting to move my quick mac Version 5.13.3 window,
when it jumped to 9/10ths of my laptop screen?
when attempting to pull it back from right, I only get a 1 way
arrow to make it larger?

how do I return quicken to the size window that has been
native for last 3 years?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

smayer97

BTW, an alternative solution (or even a complementary one) would be an option for 2-line registers. Meanwhile, you can add your VOTE to Add option for 2-line/row display.

First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click the little grey triangle under the VOTE count at the top of page 1 in the blue banner, so your vote will count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers by seeking to have the features you need or desire end up in the latest version (it may take a moment for your vote to register).

Your VOTES matter!

smayer97

So it seems that Quicken has been updated in 5.14.2 to imporve this...see comment by Marcus here:

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20060371/#Comment_20060371

smayer97

BTW, there is another feature that would complement this need for resizing and allowing the software to accommodate how a use wants to work. You can add your VOTE to Add option for 2-line/row display.

First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click the little grey triangle under the VOTE count at the top of page 1 in the blue banner, so your vote will count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers by seeking to have the features you need or desire end up in the latest version (it may take a moment for your vote to register).

(If the triangle is black, your vote has already been counted).

Your VOTES matter!

smayer97

jacobs said:

...
I went from wishing for the 2-line display to actually preferring the one-line display, with smooth scrolling and all the configurability built into it. (You can see that idea thread posted by smayer97, who still uses Quicken 2007, got a lot of votes early on as people first switched to Quicken Mac, but hasn't received many comments/complaints in recent times.)

Your statement of "... preferring the one-line display, with smooth scrolling and all the configurability built into it." implies this is not achievable with 2-line display. One has nothing to do with the other.

And yes, the 2-line display option continues to be voted on and a desired option (in the top 10 out of hundreds of requested ideas) and as of Oct 2019, is "Under Consideration". For those still wanting this, you can add your VOTE to Add option for 2-line/row display.

(If the triangle is black, your vote has already been counted).

Your VOTES matter!

All comments

szzz

C👀L trick butt I had tried to unlock the 'right only arrow' by hitting the green button topside and my last 2 positions are full screen & 9/10ths screen after it jumped when I was attempting to move it prior to this problem?

so "no joy!"

szzz

you are correct, I am on a 12" macbook
previously qmac occupied ~ 5/8ths of
screen in width, and top to bottom in
height. this is same size of my other
apps, mail, safari, etc

previously @ 5/8ths screen width, I
had plenty width to display columns
I desired in accounts, portfolio etc

changing display scaling, correct me if
I'm wrong, changes the view for ALL apps
displayed on this machine?

if so, this newly discovered FEATURE is
really a FAILURE, as I know of NO OTHER
app that demands I display now empty
viewing area?

whom/how can this FAILURE be corrected?
and I rarely find myself in situations where
I am stuck, we all have choices, if quicken
adopts behavior to turn customers away,
I would suggest they might be stuck?

again I ask, what avenue should be taken
to shine attention on this FAILURE and
keep those who refuse to be stuck?

szzz

it's maddening to be able to size the height
to ~5/8ths of my screen, but not be able to
size the width to anything less than ~9/10ths
of my screen?!?

[removed] were they thinking?

szzz

so far the only reach around is to hang the
unused unsizable area of quicken off the right
side of the monitor's screen, however this
creates a secondary unuseful feature, one
has to pull down the menu for such things as
'settings' 'columns' 'reconcile' when desiring
one of said actions!?!

jacobs

I have a 13" MacBook Pro, with a screen resolution of 2560x1600. (What is the screen width of your 12" MacBook?) For me, the minimum screen size for Quicken 2017 is about 70% of the screen; in the current Quicken 2020, it's about 83% (5/6). It's not clear why it got wider a few updates ago.
One partial workaround you may find useful is to open an account register in a separate window (e.g. in the left sidebar, double click on the account you need to work in). Now you can hide the main window (click the yellow button in the upper left to minimize it to the dock, or the red button to close it entirely). The account windows can be made quite a bit narrower than the main window. Command-1 will re-open your main window when you need it.

szzz

jacobs,

thx for your reply, but I find the answers here more of suggestions
on how to cover up a FAILURE on the part of quicken to allow users
to resize the WHOLE quicken app real estate as necessary for their use?

I'm not quite sure what other apps have as you describe 'minimum screen
size' as I have not run into the problem of limit of resize until now? RickO
suggested somehow I might have been grandfathered on app resize, as I
have used qmac since 2017, currently qmac 2020 (for over 6 months). I held
hopes that the old intuit way of telling users 'this is as good as it gets' had
disappeared in the divorce of both companies, but it seems to be DEEP SEATED!

my screen resolution on this macbook 12" = 2304 x 1440 and I quite like it, this
being my 2nd macbook 12" so crippling this good display size & balance is a
FAILed suggestion!

also, thank you for suggesting that I could open 1 account register in separate
windows, and the short cuts to operate around this FAILURE built into latest
updates, without actually up streaming this hindrance to corrected, rather than
means of how to accommodate a feature no other software manufacturer
includes?

if you examine your words, they are answers that intuit super users gave back
in the day, both being not prodding this FAILURE to be corrected, and of course
quicken hasn't allowed a method of complaint to the update team that doesn't
involve posting, praying & hoping!

I'm looking for a solution to be able to size qmac 2020 back to abilities allowed
previous to recent updates, I look at singular workaround solutions as
encouraging quicken's policy of insulating input from users.

or perhaps any super users here have an avenue to the development team
and would point out this absurdity to the change, requesting that the team
empower the user to display/size the app as it fits them? what could that hurt?

makes me throw up a little every time I open qmac now, seeing it grab 9/10rths
of the whole screen, and tells me this is a deal breaker going forward!

jacobs

You can call it a failure all you want, but that doesn't make it so; it's a change, albeit one you (reasonably) find detrimental. You say you are looking for a solution, but you are just repeating yourself to fellow users here. We don't have any mystical powers to tell the developers what to do. There may be a technical reason the window needs to be as big as it is, to have defined places for all the screen elements, but none of us know. There is an existing Idea post about this issue here, and you should go to that page and vote for it.

My tip about trying to raise this issue to the developers is to wait until the next release comes out, when there will be a post by Quicken Mac product manager "Quicken Marcus". He typically monitors that thread for the first week or so following the release, looking for reports of problems with the new version -- but it's also a time users can sometimes get him to read about and respond to an unrelated issue. In this case: why did the minimum screen width increase earlier this year, and is there any reason they can't make the minimum size smaller?

szzz

RickO,

yeah, did that before I came here, as I stated earlier, I thought the deaf ear
approach to software development stayed at the previous company, but alas
same same excuses and work around abound!

I can't be a fan of this new feature, as you stated my machine/build seemed to
be grandfathered to allow user to resize till 2 days ago!

dave

szzz

jacobs,

well I can't get behind a development team restricting the way the customer is
able to use the product, now if you could point me to another software
company that has built in a size that occupies 9/10ths of screen, I will stand
corrected, otherwise I maintain it's a FAILURE!

wasn't suggesting you had 'mystical powers' but quicken not having a direct line
to support insulates development, as does making excuses for problems such
as these?

as for the need for screen size, RickO pointed out it seems my machine/build
was insulated from this restriction till 2 days ago? I assure you I was able to use
this product to it's FULLest resizing it to NOT occupy 9/10ths of my screen!

please post a link so's I might share this FAILURE with "Quicken Marcus" and the
thread he posts on, so I can divert my attention there rather than begin a
search for a replacement product, as 9/10ths isn't cutting the mustard!

thx,

dave

jacobs

My point was that we are fellow users here, and continuing to repeat your issue doesn’t add to it. I get it. We’ve given you a couple suggestions on how users can try to get ideas/requests/suggestions/complaints to the developers.

szzz

jacobs,

I must have missed the avenues of HOW to get issues like this to the
development team, you intimated there is a thread that "Quicken Marcus"
reads? could you provide a link to said thread...

and while I appreciate the input of fellow users, in my world incorporating
work arounds is 2nd to addressing the reason for the product not meeting
the needs of its users, such as this issue... really, what other software product
takes 9/10ths of your screen?

thx,
and please pass along how I might leave bread crumbs to get this issue fixed!
ASAP!!!

dave

jacobs

Marcus doesn’t typically monitor the new release threads for more than a week or two after each release, so posting in one of the previous release threads now probably won’t get noticed. Each new release is announced with a new “Quicken 5.x released” thread posted by Marcus. Hopefully there will be a new release before the end of the year, or early next year.

szzz

jacobs,

if I recall, there was a new release last week?

where in this support forum is/are these "new Quicken 5.x released threads?"
how close to responses do posting there get issues resolved?

thx,

dave

jacobs

Dave No, when I refer to new release, I mean a "feature" release, like 5.12 or 5.13, not a bug fix release like 5.13.1 or 5.13.2.

Version 5.13 began its release on October 30. Feature releases are typically 6-8 weeks apart, although they sometimes come sooner or later, depending on how many things they're tackling, completion of development of planned features, and bugs found during testing.

You can see the latest such release thread here. But as I said, I wouldn't sp[end time posting your comments there now, because Marcus typically doesn't continue to monitor the thread after a week or two.

Oops, I see that you already posted over there. ') Ok, no harm done -- but it would be unusual to get a reply at this point in the cycle. So my suggestion was to wait until 5.14 comes out, and post your comment in that thread. Marcus doesn't respond to every question or post, especially on things seemingly unrelated to the new release, but it's your best chance to catch the eye of the man who drives Mac product development. When he does respond, he sometimes says they'll look into it, or even "we should fix it" -- but that still doesn't give you any idea when they'll get to it. The developers have hundreds of feature requests from users -- many of whom feel as strongly about their #1 need as you do about this issue -- plus infrastructure work to keep up with technology changes from Apple and other pieces of the Quicken family. So even if Marcus deems something a worthy request for change, it may be slotted as a medium priority and not get jumped on immediately.

szzz

jacobs,

I appreciate your words, but I'm still trying to get my arms around why this would become an issue w/quicken? having used the product off/on win/mac since 95, I cannot remember ever seeing app size window be a necessity?

and yes, I did post 'over there' but given there's a convoluted method to search
this support community it eluded me for some time!

as to getting the eye of the man, I'm still waiting for responses on equity prices and how quicken ports them over non market days, and it's skew effect on the
'daily gain/loss' investing window, on MONs it's worthless as the qmac downloaded prices go like this SAT = FRI, MON = SUN, so why bother...
I think I posted/asked about this almost 2 years ago?!?

I'm still shaking my head at this resize issue, and so far no one I've asked can
recall any other app/developers that set min screen size, let alone one that
occupies 9/10ths of real estate!

thx,

I'll start looking for outside alternatives till the issue gets attention, I'm not a
fan of posting, praying & waiting, this could be a deal breaker.

dave

jacobs

@szzz

There definitely has been a minimum size of the Quicken window in all versions of the modern Quicken Mac since it debuted more than five years ago. All that has changed recently is that the minimum size got a bit wider in one of the updates earlier this year. It wasn't a huge change, but for those like you working on the smallest laptop, it makes what was already a majority of the screen now closer to most of the screen. (The minimum width of Quicken Mac 2015 is about 80% as wide as Quicken 2020 is today.)

As I wrote above, we don't know if there are some technical reasons the screen width minimum was set so large, to accommodate various screen elements (some of which may be hidden for some users based on configuration). Or maybe an engineer working on a large screen inadvertently widened the screen in such a way that it got embedded in the code, and it was was a mistake. We just don't know. I think it's safe to assume that most of the programmers working on the code use either large desktop display or large laptops, so they probably don't experience this being as painful as you do.

You keep saying that no other program has a minimum window size, but in reality almost all programs do. Shrink the width of your browser screen, and you'll see it goes a certain amount but no farther. Browsers like Chrome and Safari are built to resize the function on tablets and phones, so the minimum width is generally a phone width. But other apps, from Microsoft office apps to Adobe apps do have minimum widths; you just don't find them objectionable because they're much narrower and wouldn't be usable if they let you go narrower. Look at iTunes; it has a minimum width to maintain what Apple considers a minimal useful limit. GarageBand is even wider. And yes, Quicken's minimum width is wider than all of the above.

I was only saying it's normal for program designers to implement a minimum window size. We just don't know why Quicken's is as large as it is.

szzz

jacobs,

again I appreciate your words, but they ring hollow!

saying that qmac 'got a bit wider' is a gross understatement!
since transitioning to qmac ~2017, I've used 11",12",13" screens
and sized columns that displayed my desired information using
complete height of screen and just over half 6/10ths of screen width.
after this update, qmac occupies 9/10ths of width of the screen,
more importantly there is ~ 35% real estate inside the qmac window
that is blank, meaning not displaying anything?!?

for the record, I just resized firefox, safari, word, excel, to postage
stamp sized windows, and they were operable at that size, music,
photos (don't have garageband installed) limited shrink size, but
did not take anywhere near 9/10ths the display, so I stand with my
words, NO OTHER software manufacturer limits program size to
occupy this much real estate, referencing phone sized apps is also
a red herring, as this is native macOS, not IOS real estate.yes there
are many, many screens sold the size of mine, otherwise I would
think apple wouldn't be as wealthy in some small part?

so here we are again, with NO direct means of INPUTTING a bug
report (a hold over from the intuit days of insulating the company
from it's customers), and the attempt to defend this FAILURE is a
mental wasteland, as clearly the app worked well at this size 2017,
2018, 2019, 2020 until 2020 ver 15.3?

all's I'm saying is I'd prefer to pursue solutions rather than defend
failures, because we/I do know the programs worked just fine at
6/10ths screen on a 12-inch (2304 x 1440) display.

this exchange is similar to the question I raised (and gave up) ~2
year in an attempt to ask why equity quotes are so helter skelter?
prices are harvested such that day gain/loss in investing screen
display such wildly inaccurate numbers it's useless yet remains today?
yet the defense mounted in discussion, rather than aim at the problem
resulted in focus on time zone of quote request etc etc.

sorry for being direct, we now know that many apps allow and work
quite well at less than half screen width on a 12-inch (2304 x 1440)
display, as did qmac 2020 prior to ver 15.3 and that occupying 9/10ths
of the screen is gross compared to other apps min screen req'd and
really has no know defense, my reason for coming here was to find
a solution?

thx,

dave

jacobs

Dave, again, I understand your frustration with the wide Quicken screen, and this will be my last post on the topic here.

You say your "reason for coming here was to find a solution", and you were quickly informed there is no way to make the window smaller at this time. Yet you persist in restating the same arguments over and over.

Saying "this is the way it currently works" is not "defending a failure," as you continually term it; it is answering your question of how to make the window smaller. We can speculate ad nauseam whether there is a reason for the minimum window size, or whether the reason is a good one, but absent any comment from the developers, talking about screen sizes in various other apps and related issues is just discussion among friends that won't lead to changes -- so there's no point getting annoyed with fellow users who are engaging with you in that conversation.

There is a way to report bugs: Help > Report a Problem. That said, I'd say that more than 90% of what users term "bugs" are things that don't work the way they'd like them to (or aren't even using correctly), and are thus deemed not to be bugs by developers -- which is why they don't devote a team of people to respond to every such user submission. But legitimate bugs do get to the developers there.

For other feature ideas and enhancements creating and voting on Idea posts on this forum are, according to the developers, the best way to show an idea is endorsed by many users. I'd note that the Idea post about reducing the window size currently has only a handful of votes. Have you voted for it? (Any anyone else reading this who is annoyed with the minimum width of the Quicken main window, click on that link and vote for it.)

And you now know a backdoor way to try to get an issue like this to the attention of the product manager. As I wrote above, he doesn't answer every comment, so it's no guarantee, but it's a shot.

For what it's worth, one thing I've noticed since we began discussing this is that the UI locks certain elements -- like the balance, Search box and item count -- to the right side of the screen, and the minimum width prevents those right-side elements from crossing in to the left-side elements, the rightmost of which appears to be the Clear Filters button. While the register itself has a horizontal scroll bar, undoubtedly provided by the operating system for lists, they'd probably need to redesign the screen to provide horizontal scrolling for items in the header or bottom toolbar, or program certain elements to shrink to a compressed form or to disappear, at narrower widths. So if we're looking for a why, I'd guess that's probably why it currently has a minimum width. But I have no clue why the minimum width increased recently; I can't see any difference in these elements when looking at Quicken 2017 versus Quicken 2020 which would require more horizontal space.

P.S. Since we've been throwing around approximations of screen widths, I just did a few quick measurements to quantify it. A window opened to the full width of the screen on my 13" MacBook Pro measures 1440 pixels wide; on my 21.5" iMac, full screen is 1920 pixels. The minimum screen width in Quicken 2015 (and through mid-2019) was about 1026 pixels (which is 71% on the MacBook Pro and 53% on the iMac). With the current Quicken 2020, the minimum screen width is now about 1208 pixels (which is 83% on the MacBook Pro and 63% on the iMac). The minimum screen width increase from 1026 to 1208 is an 18% increase in pixels.

szzz

jacobs,

barring a solution, I understand not having ground to defend a change
in the app with could of been this, or most likely was cause of that?

I persist in restating the problem (not an argument) that I'm having, an
app that won't let me look at other apps simultaneously is a problem!
the restating is necessary when absent a solution, or means to deliver
the message that there is a problem & solution needed, excuses are
created, work arounds are given that aren't necessary in other software
apps for mac, all because the norm of post, pray & wait are accepted.

I related that previous posts here in this support group resulted in
my suggestion that a problem exists (still does) being ignored and the
work around involved switching time zones in user's mac to get in sync?
m brokerage wouldn't allow a false widget inside their screen or app
for IOS devices that reported false information, but here I couldn't get
sunshine on it, so asking me to keep this in the shade still doesn't move
the needle, sorry to be so blunt!

you nailed it here...
"I can't see any difference in these elements when looking at
Quicken 2017 versus Quicken 2020"
clearly there's not!

we can count pixels all day, yet it still remains that other software
doesn't set min requirements that hinder the machines they are
used, safari, firefox, word, excel etc etc and yes I restated that, as it
was rejected as a reason in earlier discussions, which it isn't?

again, you could reduce this to "it doesn't operate the way he likes
it" but that still doesn't answer the reason (if any) that this change
need happen, as it stands, it just gets in the way, which software shouldn't!

thx,

dave

szzz

just installed update Version 5.14.0
still locked @ 9/10 screen coverage!
I'm guessing this one slipped by?

smayer97

Similar to my other reply, you can add a link to a comment in this thread where the product manager is currently reviewing posts.

szzz

smayer97,

thx for answering, but I'm going to guess that you didn't read
above where I indicated I had followed your suggestion before
re posting on this thread?

clearly the "comment here" didn't produce and action on this issue,
and I'm a bit disturbed that voting/commenting is the recommended
way to get attention (or perhaps retire a question here as answered)
as I haven't seen an evidence of it's effectiveness?

how would you suggest, as a super user, input to quicken be effectively
delivered, as voting/commenting & praying isn't working?

thx!

smayer97

The avenues we have to pass on info:

- Quicken Support (read this thread)

- thread (new or existing) in this forum

- via the "Report a Problem" option in the Quicken Help menu

- a reply to a thread of a newly released version of QMac (current one is this thread) (product manager monitors these for a week or two after a release)

NOTE: the words "this thread" are clickable links

szzz

smayer97,

as indicated in this thread, I have followed the 3 suggestions
you have repeated, with zero success.

the last guidance I received was to wait for an update, and
return to this thread, which is why I reported that all 3 methods
you've repeated weren't successful?

I'm disturbed that those 3 methods are being suggested as
effective means of communication to quicken?

smayer97

I listed 4. Which 3 did you use?

Unfortunately, these are all that we are given. If you have not tried the last one, I would suggest that is likely the best one at this point in time, since the PM monitors (and replies to) thread regularly right after a new release.

(and I am just a messenger, so do not shoot me

szzz

smayer97,

I am not trying to shoot you, you must also understand that
when a customer's problem isn't responded to, and that
customer revisits same problem and is being told to start
the process again, without regard to previous journey's down
same path, well it reminds me of Einstein's paradigm!

szzz

for the record,
I have used EVERY
link/thread/suggestion
before reporting back
that no action was taken!

you are on one hand admitting
that it's an ineffectual path,
yet encouraging customer's
to continue to follow that path?

smayer97

That is why I recommended that you include a link to any relevant thread when you post a comment in the current Release discussion. That helps maintain some continuity.

smayer97

But did you try the LAST option? I do not see you raising this issue there!

I agree it is not the most efficient or effective method. I did not create this process. I am just another user like you. I am providing you the best available info for you to maximize the exposure. Beyond that, there is nothing I can do.

szzz

look, I'm sorry I haven't linked every occurrence
of my visiting the comment links, report a problem
button etc.

that doesn't really help outline a problem that
crept in ~ 3 updates ago, and each time I raise the
question I get a labyrinth of directions & explanations?

you've linked back & forth tween my 2 posts this eve,
yet here we are vote/comment & hope?