No. of Recommendations: 1
Switch to MS Money!!! I used Quicken for 4 years. My mounting frustration with the application resulted in me trying MS Money 2001 a couple of days ago. Let me tell you all...it is such a better thought out application that makes all your basic tasks so much easier to do. I setup:

- 3 loans
- 4 investment accounts
- 2 cc accounts
- checking
- savings
- money market
- automated bills/loan payments

and it took me less than 2 hours. The reports are better, the automated billing is better, the interface is cleaner and easier to understand, the marketing/advertising fluff is substantially less than quicken, there are fewer and more precise categories that make more sense, the backup system is easier, movement around the register is easier, etc etc.

I can't believe how much time I spent trying to force Quicken to do what I wanted when MS Money already had it all figured out.

lmorroni
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Switch to MS Money!!!

There's just something about giving a program written by MS my financial info that severely unnerves me.

Agent
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Switch to MS Money!!!

Can MS Money import Quicken files into it, so I can keep all the same accounts and historical data in them?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That is the biggest complaint by MS Money users. The Quicken import utility isn't very good. I couldn't import anything from Quicken 2002. I ended up starting from scratch and having to move on without my 4 years of historical data from Quicken. I didn't mind so much when I realized that my reports in Quicken were such a pain in the butt to get straight answers from anyway. Also, all my loans transferred over easily because Money gives you the option to record every transaction made to the loan since it's inception. But I did almost not make the move because of the conversion issue and I understand if other people don't because of that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I respect that feeling. However, they are not allowed to send any financial information back to themselves without the user's consent. I'm just excited to know I will definitely spend less time doing my finances as a result of a better applictaion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
However, they are not allowed to send any financial information back to themselves without the user's consent.

It's not just them accessing the information that worries me, it's their lack of built-in security.

Agent - wary of MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Switch to MS Money!!! I used Quicken for 4 years. My mounting frustration with the application resulted in me trying MS Money 2001 a couple of days ago.

It's a matter of personal style. I'd downloaded Q2001 from Intuit and registered it, then made the mistake of installing Visual Studio .Net which destroyed practically everything on my hard drive. I didn't have the Quicken *install* file backed up (all the data yes, my registration info yes, the install file no). And of course Intuit didn't have the 2001 version available for download anymore. I did have a free copy of MS Money 2001. So after reformatting the drive and reinstalling the OS, I tried it. After two days I went out and paid full price for a current version of Quicken.

MS Money is, distilled down to a very pure state in one program, EVERYTHING that I have EVER hated about any version of Windows.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's not just them accessing the information that worries me, it's their lack of built-in security.


No, you have it backward.

MS doesn't have a lack of built-in security.

MS has a built-in lack of security.

If you don't believe me, pick your favorite version of their OS and take a look at the list of critical updates that MS has offered for it. What you'll find is that over 2/3 of them are security-related - and of those, about half involve disabling something that they very carefully and deliberately designed in.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
pick your favorite version of their OS

I don't have a favorite version of Windows, I run MacOS so I have very few security concerns.

Agent
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
No, you have it backward.

MS doesn't have a lack of built-in security.

MS has a built-in lack of security.

If you don't believe me, pick your favorite version of their OS and take a look at the list of critical updates that MS has offered for it. What you'll find is that over 2/3 of them are security-related - and of those, about half involve disabling something that they very carefully and deliberately


wah wah wah...i'm so sick of the "anti-microsoft just because they are big" philosophy. name one OS that does not reveal security flaws when used by so many people? the fact of the matter is windows 2000 is a stable and relatively secure system if used by an experienced operator. the user interface issues you referenced are personal preference. just because it is like standard windows apps, doesn't mean it is bad...it actually means it is good. i don't know about otehrs, but i like consistant behavior withing my set of applictaions.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
name one OS that does not reveal security flaws when used by so many people? the fact of the matter is windows 2000 is a stable and relatively secure system if used by an experienced operator.

How about MacOS, Unix, Linux etc. There have been competitions on hacking all OS's and the first one hacked everytime is Windows. As for Win2k being stable if used by an experienced operator, I suggest you check out the problems I had here: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=16164483

Agent
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How about MacOS, Unix, Linux etc. There have been competitions on hacking all OS's and the first one hacked everytime is Windows. As for Win2k being stable if used by an experienced operator, I suggest you check out the problems I had here: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=16164483


I have been using Win2k for 2+ years now. I have Pro running on a laptop and my workstation at work. I have advanced server running on my server at home and on the server that I co-locate. I have never had any problems with any of those builds. I have never had a security breach on my servers. The co-located server has been running for over 4 months straight without flinching. Like I said, you need to know how to operate them. Unix and linux are definitely MORE secure but that doesn't mean that Windows 2K is an insecure piece. It just means that Win2K gets more scrutinized because it doesn't share code and is used by so many people. "God Bless Apple"...don't forget how few vendors there are for apple and how strict Apple's hardware development standards are. Microsoft is just now starting to gain the power that Apple has had all along over Hardware vendors.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
How about MacOS, Unix, Linux etc. There have been competitions on hacking all OS's and the first one hacked everytime is Windows

They asked about a OS that was used by alot of people not 1 or 2% of the market.


Besides, I believe the applications that communicate through the OS is hacked more so than the actual OS itself. If you use something other than Outlook on Windows you are fairly safe. I believe it is Outlook that is the problem.



john
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
i'm so sick of the "anti-microsoft just because they are big" philosophy.

I am not "anti-microsoft just because they are big". In fact I am not anti-microsoft at all.

I am anti-software-that-sucks. And Microsoft has produced quite a lot of software that sucks.

As for an OS that doesn't show security holes when used by so many people, of course I can't because there is no other OS that is used by even half as many people.

But here's the reality of it: at least five well-known organizations have produced server operating systems that, over YEARS of work, have shown less severe security problems than Windows XP showed in the first month. The five I am thinking of are: Novell, Sun, Microsoft (Windows NT 3.X and 4.X in particular), IBM, and the Linux community.

Microsoft seems to think that they can produce a highly secure operating system when the security is an afterthought and not allowed to restrict the impressive-sounding (but, frequently, useless) bells and whistles. Everybody else in the industry knows better.

Microsoft's approach can produce a system that is user-friendly, but unfortunately the hacker becomes a user and Microsoft's recent OSes are peculiarly friendly to hackers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I believe it is Outlook that is the problem.


Actually, while Outlook is (not has, is) the most visible and most accessible security problem with Windows, almost every current piece of Microsoft software that does network stuff has big security holes. That includes IE, IIS, and WinXP.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I hate to see this discussion to digress to OS battles. The point of my post was that I like MS Money 2001 a lot more than any Quicken i have used yet. I think the app is well thought out and well written.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well oh yeah? Well, only a Windows-using dumba$$ would make such an asinine comment.

I'm kidding!!!!!
Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agree...amen
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well that means MS is cheating again........such hi tech hot shots
should have a good import product if they really want our business.

NO way will I switch...............our holdings would take days to enter manually.

shame on MS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How about MacOS, Unix, Linux etc. There have been competitions on hacking all OS's and the first one hacked everytime is Windows.

This is not true, using the conventional definition of "hacked" (that is, someone changes or deletes files on your computer, or causes a program to execute on it, without being physically present at the computer but instead doing it over the Internet).

Assuming you don't use File And Printer Sharing (which exposes your files to the network/Internet on purpose), there is simply no known method for hacking Win95, Win98, WinME, or Win2000. There are plenty of applications, and loadable OS-like features (like IIS) that can be hacked, but not the OS itself. WinXP had a major blunder that allowed it to be hacked, so it can be hacked unless you've downloaded the patch.

If there WAS a way to "hack" a Windows computer, people would be doing it all the time. There are millions of them on-line, after all. But there's NO reported instance of hacking through the OS (other than the XP blunder). That's why viruses need an email program or some other program running under the OS to attack.

Point me to a news story about a non-XP Windows system being hacked through the OS itself (without a virus or trojan planted somehow first). I dare you.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the conventional definition of "hacked" (that is, someone changes or deletes files on your computer, or causes a program to execute on it, without being physically present at the computer but instead doing it over the Internet).

Oops, I should have included "reading a file on your computer". Note that you can, over the Internet, read some things like the "computername" off a Windows computer -- but not files through the OS (again, assuming one isn't using File And Printer Sharing).

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...the conventional definition of "hacked" (that is, someone changes or deletes files on your computer, or causes a program to execute on it, without being physically present at the computer but instead doing it over the Internet).

I don't know what convention you attended but what you describe is definitely not hacking. Hacking is programming at a very low level (i.e. deep within the code) that requires an understanding of how computers work that often borders on or crosses into the profound. Hacking is NOT, I repeat, NOT vandalism. Hackers may be vandals but it ain't necessarily so. As with any other tool (guns and knives, say) or talent it can be and often is misused and then irrational people go overboard pointing fingers at everyone with the subject tools and talent.

Windows exhibits many holes that either get patched or that get instructions added to disable some feature or function.

BTW, back on thread I use Quicken and Quickbooks and I'm a fan of neither. Sadly, they are the "best" of a really sorry lot.

KennyO
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
KennyO,

I don't know what convention you attended but what you describe is definitely not hacking. Hacking is programming at a very low level (i.e. deep within the code) that requires an understanding of how computers work that often borders on or crosses into the profound. Hacking is NOT, I repeat, NOT vandalism.

Clearly, the context calls for hacking as in "hack into". I understand that at one time "hackers" were simply expert programmers, who prefer the term "crackers" for what the rest of the entire world now calls "hackers". Words change in meaning, life is tough.

Windows exhibits many holes that either get patched or that get instructions added to disable some feature or function.

Name one. Microsoft themselves said, when talking about the XP blunder, that no remote-security hole had ever been reported in any prior version of Windows. Haven't seen anyone question that statement yet.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
*ahem*

This mornings Seattle Times headline reads "Gates: Fix Product Security"

'nuff said.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This mornings Seattle Times headline reads "Gates: Fix Product Security"

'nuff said.


If you read Gates' announcement, he's talking primarily about security faults in their non-OS products, which are legion.

There's still only one known security fault in any Windows OS, the one in XP for which a patch was promptly made available.

Phil
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement