Prev: gain % vs total return vs high divs
Next: Is there a way to add archived transactions?
From: Gary on 10 Mar 2010 13:22
With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's not
as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement.

Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I already
have the program ... just have been delaying installing it because of
all the complaints I've read.

From: Targ on 10 Mar 2010 15:42
In alt.comp.software.financial.quicken, Gary wrote:

>With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's not
>as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement.

Could it be that some of what you see as grief is people who were
not previously using Quicken 2009, but were using Microsoft Money?

>
>Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I already
>have the program ... just have been delaying installing it because of
>all the complaints I've read.

I understand that rearranging the human interface can cause grief to
people experienced in the earlier version. I think it is in the
nature of software designers and marketing people to want to do
change as an objective. Now if upper management (not just Intuit)
would make "least astonishment" as an objective, that would improve
software design.

The description in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment is not
quite what I am thinking of. Instead designers and "marketing"
should avoid human interface change for sake of change between
versions. I know that is hard due to the desire to look as if you
are accomplishing things.
From: Notan on 10 Mar 2010 16:00
On 3/10/2010 1:42 PM, Targ wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.financial.quicken, Gary wrote:
>
>> With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's not
>> as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement.
>
> Could it be that some of what you see as grief is people who were
> not previously using Quicken 2009, but were using Microsoft Money?
>
>>
>> Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I already
>> have the program ... just have been delaying installing it because of
>> all the complaints I've read.
>
> I understand that rearranging the human interface can cause grief to
> people experienced in the earlier version. I think it is in the
> nature of software designers and marketing people to want to do
> change as an objective. Now if upper management (not just Intuit)
> would make "least astonishment" as an objective, that would improve
> software design.
>
> The description in
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment is not
> quite what I am thinking of. Instead designers and "marketing"
> should avoid human interface change for sake of change between
> versions. I know that is hard due to the desire to look as if you
> are accomplishing things.

Again, if Intuit would just leave Quicken alone (i.e. no more
"improvements"), fix the bugs and offer connection services as
a subscription-based model, I'd think they (and we!) would do
just fine.
From: Han on 10 Mar 2010 20:44
Notan <notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in
news:_NudnTZN3JTqlQXWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com:

> On 3/10/2010 1:42 PM, Targ wrote:
>> In alt.comp.software.financial.quicken, Gary wrote:
>>
>>> With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's
>>> not as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement.
>>
>> Could it be that some of what you see as grief is people who were
>> not previously using Quicken 2009, but were using Microsoft Money?
>>
>>>
>>> Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I
>>> already have the program ... just have been delaying installing it
>>> because of all the complaints I've read.
>>
>> I understand that rearranging the human interface can cause grief to
>> people experienced in the earlier version. I think it is in the
>> nature of software designers and marketing people to want to do
>> change as an objective. Now if upper management (not just Intuit)
>> would make "least astonishment" as an objective, that would improve
>> software design.
>>
>> The description in
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment is not
>> quite what I am thinking of. Instead designers and "marketing"
>> should avoid human interface change for sake of change between
>> versions. I know that is hard due to the desire to look as if you
>> are accomplishing things.
>
> Again, if Intuit would just leave Quicken alone (i.e. no more
> "improvements"), fix the bugs and offer connection services as
> a subscription-based model, I'd think they (and we!) would do
> just fine.

I agree with Notan.
FWIW, I have no regrets upgrading from 08 to 10.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
From: Notan on 10 Mar 2010 21:00
On 3/10/2010 6:44 PM, Han wrote:
> Notan<notan(a)ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote in
> news:_NudnTZN3JTqlQXWnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com:
>
>> On 3/10/2010 1:42 PM, Targ wrote:
>>> In alt.comp.software.financial.quicken, Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> With all the grief that Q2010 seems to be causing, I wonder if it's
>>>> not as good as Q2009, equally as good, or an improvement.
>>>
>>> Could it be that some of what you see as grief is people who were
>>> not previously using Quicken 2009, but were using Microsoft Money?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would appreciate anyone's opinion. The issue isn't money. I
>>>> already have the program ... just have been delaying installing it
>>>> because of all the complaints I've read.
>>>
>>> I understand that rearranging the human interface can cause grief to
>>> people experienced in the earlier version. I think it is in the
>>> nature of software designers and marketing people to want to do
>>> change as an objective. Now if upper management (not just Intuit)
>>> would make "least astonishment" as an objective, that would improve
>>> software design.
>>>
>>> The description in
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment is not
>>> quite what I am thinking of. Instead designers and "marketing"
>>> should avoid human interface change for sake of change between
>>> versions. I know that is hard due to the desire to look as if you
>>> are accomplishing things.
>>
>> Again, if Intuit would just leave Quicken alone (i.e. no more
>> "improvements"), fix the bugs and offer connection services as
>> a subscription-based model, I'd think they (and we!) would do
>> just fine.
>
> I agree with Notan.
> FWIW, I have no regrets upgrading from 08 to 10.

Just out of curiosity, why'd you go for 2010 and not wait for 2011,
knowing that 2008 won't sunset for another year?

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: gain % vs total return vs high divs
Next: Is there a way to add archived transactions?