PDA

View Full Version : Quicken 2007 May Run on OS X Lion, Even With Rosetta Dead




Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Jun 16, 2011, 08:44 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/16/quicken-2007-may-run-on-os-x-lion-even-with-rosetta-dead/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/quicken2007-150x171.png

Earlier in the week it was reported that PowerPC-emulation software Rosetta will be killed off (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/13/os-x-lion-to-drop-rosetta-support-for-powerpc-applications/) in OS X Lion. This is of particular concern to users of older apps like Quicken 2007 (which is still for sale (http://quicken.intuit.com/personal-finance-software/mac-financial-software.jsp)) which some users favor because the current version of Quicken Essentials for Mac is missing numerous features that the 2007 version had.

Aaron Patzer, VP/GM of Intuit's Personal Finance Group spoke with The Mac Observer about the intricacies of Intuit's codebase (http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/quicken_2007_might_work_on_lion_not_right_away/).
Mr. Patzer explained that the PowerPC codebase for Quicken For Mac 2007 was started decades ago and has many intricacies — including its own custom-built database engine — that are very much PowerPC specific. Simply porting this code over to Intel is not possible and would require a significant amount of work. So much so that Intuit decided to focus those resources on developing an entirely new application, Quicken Essentials for Mac.But what of Rosetta and Quicken 2007 and OS X Lion? Intuit is reportedly working with Apple (http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/quicken_2007_might_work_on_lion_not_right_away/) to embed the necessary parts of Rosetta in Quicken 2007 to get it to run on Lion. The project has been underway for the past few months, with Intuit working to possibly embed specific Rosetta libraries into Quicken For Mac 2007 to get it to run. This, too, is not a simple project and may never come to fruition. It's a massive project and may never work, but they are working on it. We should know more by the end of the summer.

Article Link: Quicken 2007 May Run on OS X Lion, Even With Rosetta Dead (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/16/quicken-2007-may-run-on-os-x-lion-even-with-rosetta-dead/)



Cougarcat
Jun 16, 2011, 08:49 PM
Weird. Sounds like it would be easier just to start over and build the damn thing from the ground up.

mattwolfmatt
Jun 16, 2011, 08:52 PM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

Airforcekid
Jun 16, 2011, 08:55 PM
Why not add those features to essentials in an update seems so much more simpler let outdated technology die it has to eventually.

inket
Jun 16, 2011, 08:55 PM
If they're not willing to update their app (with all features) for Rosetta-free Lion then they definitely don't deserve their users' money.

longofest
Jun 16, 2011, 08:55 PM
That sounds like a kludge if I ever heard of one. Wouldn't it be nice if Intuit put those R&D dollars into making a new, decent version of Quicken for Mac?

Airforcekid
Jun 16, 2011, 08:56 PM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

Crossover or another wine program should be able to do it fine no 3D graphics etc.

brand
Jun 16, 2011, 08:57 PM
Instead of developing an acceptable version they want to hack a version that is almost 5 years old to work? That is ridiculous. Quicken Essentials for Mac definitely shows whats little effort they put towards developing for the Mac community. At this point I would buy Microsoft Money if it was made for the Mac before giving my money to Intuit to only be told "Go F Yourself" in return.

commander.data
Jun 16, 2011, 08:58 PM
Isn't PPC compatibility bigger than simply the Rosetta layer that translate PPC instructions to x86 instructions? PPC Applications may also link to the PowerPC versions of Apple frameworks and APIs, which have now been removed from Lion. So applications will have to either include PowerPC versions of each framework and API they use, which presumably requires Apple's permission, or they still need to be partially rewritten to link to the remaining Intel versions of frameworks and APIs.

YMark
Jun 16, 2011, 09:00 PM
Unfortunately, Intuit has failed Mac users. I was an long time Quicken user up until I made the switch to a Mac about 3 years ago. Quicken on a Mac is a farce.

canadianmacguy
Jun 16, 2011, 09:01 PM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

iBank worked great reading in our data - not 10 years worth, but at least you can download the trial and give it a try: http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/

NJL6705
Jun 16, 2011, 09:03 PM
For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.

sailnavy
Jun 16, 2011, 09:07 PM
Intuit is just horrendous for Mac. I'm amazed that they even bother trying. I transitioned to QuickenOnline only to have that shuttered, with no data transition plan. I went back to Quicken 2007, then tried Quicken Essentials for Mac, which was horrible. I was convinced to try QE for Mac again after I interacted with Quicken on Facebook. It still is horrible, and tries to look like iTunes. It's as if they hired a bunch of 22 year olds that never balanced a check book to rewrite the thing.

How is it possible that we can't get a decent checkbook program to track expenses and net worth over time?

PlaceofDis
Jun 16, 2011, 09:08 PM
For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.

you would think that this would be the best and easiest option. :confused:

quicken's mac support has been atrocious for years, why they took so long to even just get the 'essentials' app out the door i'll never know, and its still had no major updates and no features added to it. what a waste.

scotty321
Jun 16, 2011, 09:10 PM
There is a great article on this very topic of Quicken abandoning Mac users here:

Quicken for Lion: Why does Intuit hate Mac users? (http://scottworldblog.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/why-does-intuit-hate-mac-users-and-why-doesnt-apple-save-us/)

Analog Kid
Jun 16, 2011, 09:16 PM
The TurboTax gravy train has completely hollowed out Intuit. I suspect a day will come when a significant competitor to TurboTax appears and Intuit won't have the capacity to respond, but in the mean time we need to deal with zombie products and extortion based business models because they have no remaining engineering capacity.

Does the premise of their argument make sense to anyone-- how could, and why would, anyone tie a database structure into a CPU level instruction set? Endian issues, I'll grant you, but that's not new science to resolve. I'd almost write it off an spin, except if it were then this Rosetta integration would be taking a bogus excuse to a whole new level.

Except maybe the vaporware is enough to keep people from looking at alternatives in the mean time, or keeps competitors from fielding a product.

I think they've just decided to coast and hope to keep collecting profits from people who have 10 years of financial data tied up in their products and for whom keeping that history is worth whatever ransom Intuit demands. I'll admit that's what's kept me using TurboTax, but I'm not far from the point where I'd rather just reenter my data than sidestep the number of ads Intuit embeds in their payware, and then deal with the crashing and interface bugs.

zama36
Jun 16, 2011, 09:24 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Try Moneydance. It imports QIF files. Java based so it isn't necessarily as pretty as Quicken but who cares. Dumped Quicken a long time ago and haven't looked back.

Lumpydog
Jun 16, 2011, 09:24 PM
That is a freaking riot.

Seriously - I hate Intuit - I've been patient and loyal and they've bailed on us Mac users, so I'm laughing my ass of thinking about those guys working around the clock to try to make that dog-of-a-product still work. I don't feel sorry for them, they made their bed. Good luck.

Intuit... you guys are morons.

skellener
Jun 16, 2011, 09:25 PM
Ten years and they never updated their legacy code. Stop using this program already!!! It's time to move on.

junker
Jun 16, 2011, 09:37 PM
I've heard that 2007 was trash and Essentials was pathetic - but I really like my Quicken 2006.

I was looking at a few different money management tools, but most are too simplified - Just a check/savings program. Some have a few more things, but I haven't found one that does as much as 2006.

Don';t eman to take the defensive position for Quicken here - cause I certainly have many problems, but if anyone that's used 2006 and has a comparable replacement, I'm listening!

I think I looked at ibank, moneydance and I think one or two others.

I'm looking for: connection to bank (direct download with Major Bank) for checking; turbo tax integration for my small business concerns;stock following; budget setting;and rental property management; property and loan management.

TeamMojo
Jun 16, 2011, 09:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

For such a large software company to not have all of its products in Cocoa and on iOS and MacOS is a major embarrassment. Intuit's PC software is crappy too. They have a very marginal database server craplet attempt at a networked multiple user accounting app.

No one with any sense of quality should buy their products.

RogueWarrior65
Jun 16, 2011, 09:45 PM
IMHO, Apple should do one or more of the following:

1) Open source Rosetta. How am I going to run Resorcerer? Jeez.
2) Buy Quicken and Quickbooks from Intuit if not the whole company. I would pay good money for a OSX native version of Quickbooks Premiere.

If nothing else, I have 18 years of Quicken data, which is most enlightening, btw, so hearing this rumor is good news.

Analog Kid
Jun 16, 2011, 09:45 PM
I knew something smelled fishy-- they claim that Quicken 2007 is based on decades of development for the PowerPC platform, but Quicken '98 didn't even run on PowerPC:

http://web.intuit.com/support/quicken/docs/m_98req.html

They didn't ship a PowerPC based version of Quicken until 2000. How did seven years become "decades", plural?

jbh001
Jun 16, 2011, 09:45 PM
... the PowerPC codebase for Quicken For Mac 2007 was started decades ago and has many intricacies including its own custom-built database engine that are very much PowerPC specific. Simply porting this code over to Intel is not possible and would require a significant amount of work. So much so that Intuit decided to focus those resources on developing an entirely new application
Mac OS 7.1.2 was the first version to run on PowerPC architecture. It was released March 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_7_(Macintosh)#Version_history), so saying Quicken for Mac was coded decades ago is somewhat of a stretch since it's not even March of 2014 yet.

It also sounds like the time is long past for Intuit to abandon "intricate" and "custom-built" for something more standard, portable, and less complex. Intuit appears either unwilling or unable to commit the financial resources needed to update Quicken into a compelling product for the Mac. There is a saying: "innovate or die." It seems pretty clear what option Intuit has chosen for Quicken. They must be in pretty bad financial shape and/or willingly clueless.

blue22
Jun 16, 2011, 09:47 PM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

iBank worked great reading in our data - not 10 years worth, but at least you can download the trial and give it a try: http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/



iBank4 looks really good, it has a lot of helpful video tutorials (http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/tutorials.php) on their website as well, and most likely this is what I'll upgrade to as well. Just FYI: if you purchase the iBank4 license diretly from the Mac App store you won't be able to get the 30 day money-back guarantee that IGG Software offers when buying it from their online shop, so that's something to take into consideration before you spend any cash on this product.

jdeitch
Jun 16, 2011, 09:53 PM
I've tried running a PC version of Quicken (2009) using both VMWare Fusion and CrossOver. It works a little better using Fusion, but you need a copy of Windows so it costs more. The main issues I've found with CrossOver relate to the help messages (I get lots of error messages). The speed between Fusion and CrossOver seems to be comparable and adequate.

Moneydance works well too, but isn't as mature (with respect to features, reporting, etc.) as the PC versions of Quicken. It does cost less than either Q-2009 + Fusion + Windows or Quicken + CrossOver. Running natively on the Mac is also a definite plus.

SEE Finance is fairly new and doesn't do some basic things yet (like check printing). I'm also not too crazy about their portfolio view (as far as I can tell, you can look at stocks, bonds or mutual funds, but not one combined portfolio). On the plus side, the QIF import was amazing. It imported my whole file from Quicken for Mac with just a few minor transactions to clean up.

I have Quicken data going back to the late '80s and the export/import into the PC version of Quicken was challenging. I tried one big export and import and the results were terrible. I ended up exporting and importing each account separately using individual QIF files. That worked pretty well if I imported the earliest (based on last transaction date in the account) first. After each import I cleaned up all the accounts before importing the next one. It took two to three weeks of pretty much constant work to do it. I'm still exploring Quicken 2009, but it seems more stable and definitely has more features than the 2006 Mac version I have.

zorinlynx
Jun 16, 2011, 09:54 PM
Why is it so hard for Intuit to just recompile their code for Intel?

Pretty much every other company in the world had Intel versions of their software within the first year of the Intel Macs; even Adobe, foot draggers that they are, got an Intel version of CS out within a year!

There's really not much of an excuse for this. I don't use Quicken but I feel for people who do and won't be able to run it on Lion.

KurtangleTN
Jun 16, 2011, 09:56 PM
So if Apple can build in Rosetta to a single application why not just leave it system wide?

Seems like it's creating issues for absolutely no real benefit.

hollow000
Jun 16, 2011, 09:57 PM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

Try this one: http://www.scimonocesoftware.com/seefinance/index.html

I read that it can import Quicken files

blue22
Jun 16, 2011, 10:02 PM
If they're not willing to update their app (with all features) for Rosetta-free Lion then they definitely don't deserve their users' money.

Unfortunately, Intuit has failed Mac users. I was an long time Quicken user up until I made the switch to a Mac about 3 years ago. Quicken on a Mac is a farce.

Ten years and they never updated their legacy code. Stop using this program already!!! It's time to move on.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

For such a large software company to not have all of its products in Cocoa and on iOS and MacOS is a major embarrassment. Intuit's PC software is crappy too. They have a very marginal database server craplet attempt at a networked multiple user accounting app.

No one with any sense of quality should buy their products.



Just FYI, for those that have heard of Mint.com (http://www.mint.com/), and are considering it as potential alternative to Quicken, I urge caution with using this online service. They offer a free online based personal budget tool with slick looking GUI and video tutorials, and it easily links to your bank records, updates your registers intelligently, and overall around sounds great, especially the free part. However, they have some questionable third party sharing fine print and general privacy concerns (http://www.jasonowens.com/mint-com-in-2010-is-it-safe/) that personally scares me away from ever using this, no matter how good it looks, so do your homework on them before you sign-up for their free account.

And the best/interesting part is? Intuit owes them.

edwardd20
Jun 16, 2011, 10:06 PM
Old news, but...

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mac-dev-jobs/message/203

sethwalt
Jun 16, 2011, 10:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

I got tired of quicken's lack of support a few years back, tried some other programs, and settled on Fortora Fresh Finance. It did the best job of importing 20 years of data and had the features I wanted. Sorry I don't have a link handy (I'm on my phone). But t may be worth checking out, too.

*LTD*
Jun 16, 2011, 10:27 PM
Seems the folks at Inuit are just incredibly lazy. They have had years to develop a Universal version.

davidg4781
Jun 16, 2011, 10:40 PM
I've been using Quicken Essentials since it's come out and so far, I'm happy with it. Yeah, it doesn't have all the extra features some of y'all need, and I can understand your frustration with that, but for someone simple like me, it gets the job done.

Since it's come out, they have added more features to it. They're also pretty quick with updating any bugs. I think since it's been out, I've had to download about maybe 10 different updates.

Maybe later they might add some of those features, but for now, I'm a satisfied customer.

I did use Quicken 2006 for a few years and to me, it was clunkier and older feeling.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 16, 2011, 10:40 PM
For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.

So companies like Inuit have no incentive to write native software?

We have seen what that does to an OS and it isn't pretty.

redsteven
Jun 16, 2011, 10:43 PM
Years ago a copy of Quicken came with a mac that I bought (I think it might have been my old iBook G4).

Hated it and put off tracking finances for a long time (I was in high school, so putting it off was doable).

Now I use MoneyWell http://nothirst.com/moneywell/

violaboy
Jun 16, 2011, 10:45 PM
Jeez, doesn't "2007" say enough?

Intuit needs to use some common sense and update their damn software.:mad:

SoGood
Jun 16, 2011, 10:45 PM
Vaporware!!! Beware!

Looking at a move to iBank.

subsonix
Jun 16, 2011, 10:54 PM
Wouldn't it be easier to just leave Rosetta in Lion? Apparently there are applications and developers that don't think six years was enough to prepare for the transition.

mdriftmeyer
Jun 16, 2011, 10:56 PM
Mr. Patzer explained that the PowerPC codebase for Quicken For Mac 2007 was started decades ago and has many intricacies -- including its own custom-built database engine -- that are very much PowerPC specific. Simply porting this code over to Intel is not possible and would require a significant amount of work.

Do these guys ever tire of that same old panned press statement that is not remotely factual? I guess not.

This is not an Operating System getting ported. It's a single application.

Sorry, but anyone relying on Quicken in this day and age needs to rethink their approach to managing their own assets.

*LTD*
Jun 16, 2011, 10:58 PM
I have an idea for all those long-suffering Quicken users.

Instead of hanging on to outdated, poorly-coded software made by a lazy company that doesn't give a damn, and that will eventually be too old to run (like now), why not migrate to something else? That would kinda make more sense.

DTphonehome
Jun 16, 2011, 10:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

God, if it's SO important to run Quicken, just do it in a virtual machine running Windows. You'll always be supported by Intuit then.

Amazing Iceman
Jun 16, 2011, 11:06 PM
Having dealt with Intuit for years, it would be madness for them to do this instead of building a new app from scratch.
One thing software companies hate the most is having to provide technical support. That's why some commercial software doesn't evolve as fast as others.
To embed libraries to make it work without Rosetta would add more potential points of failure to the app, increasing the number of support calls.
Of course, Intuit charges for support after the trial period expires, but even I was able to get free support when I proved to them that the problems I was experimenting were caused by their software, not by user error.

AriX
Jun 16, 2011, 11:10 PM
I knew something smelled fishy-- they claim that Quicken 2007 is based on decades of development for the PowerPC platform, but Quicken '98 didn't even run on PowerPC:

http://web.intuit.com/support/quicken/docs/m_98req.html

They didn't ship a PowerPC based version of Quicken until 2000. How did seven years become "decades", plural?

That's a good point. Although, keep in mind that after Apple moved to PowerPC, they maintained a 680x0 translation/emulation environment much like Rosetta that allowed 680x0-compiled apps like Quicken to run on PPC Macs. They also had Universal apps, though at the time they were only called "fat binaries."

Now, I understand that rewriting code specifically written for one processor to run on another is not trivial, but this just seems like laziness. Do the people at Intuit not know how to write databases for Intel/x86? Oh wait, they've been doing THAT for decades.

lilo777
Jun 16, 2011, 11:12 PM
Seems the folks at Inuit are just incredibly lazy. They have had years to develop a Universal version.

Apple discontinuing support for Rosetta - business decision. Intuit not willing to invest into development of applications for a niche market (OS/X) - lazy. Double standard or something? If anything, Apple should have much more commitment to support their OS/X customers than Intuit. After all, Intuit does offer you perfectly functional version of their software - on Windows. Enjoy.

artpease
Jun 16, 2011, 11:14 PM
iBank hasn't mastered the concept of addition and subtraction, or a useable interface. Caveat emptor.

MacVault
Jun 16, 2011, 11:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I gave up on Quicken LONG ago. It's like why do they even bother trying to develop for Mac when they can never get it right. Feature disparity. Very poor UI, etc.

southernpaws
Jun 16, 2011, 11:39 PM
For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.

Yeah. Also build in some backwards compatibility for wordperfect.

Intuit needs to make a full featured product that's less than 4 years old

southernpaws
Jun 16, 2011, 11:54 PM
Apple discontinuing support for Rosetta - business decision. Intuit not willing to invest into development of applications for a niche market (OS/X) - lazy. Double standard or something? If anything, Apple should have much more commitment to support their OS/X customers than Intuit. After all, Intuit does offer you perfectly functional version of their software - on Windows. Enjoy.

Exactly how many more millions of users do there need to be to make it worthwhile for them?

Even Microsoft keeps office for Mac updated more often.

likegadgets
Jun 16, 2011, 11:59 PM
I run Parallels with Windows 7 just so I can run Quicken 2011. Works fine, but there is the added expense of Windows, Parallels, memory, etc.

It looks like Intuit is simply incapable of porting the product to Mac. With the growing market share, the number of people switching to Mac, a new generation of graduates that are Mac Centric, and the popularity of iOS - I would think Intuit would pay attention.

The only app I use that needs Rosetta is the Mac client for PC Anywhere I still must access PCs remotely using PC Anywhere. I will Probably need to start using remote desktop. But many PCs will need to be reconfigured,,,,

..d..ecay
Jun 17, 2011, 12:23 AM
Unfortunately, Intuit has failed Mac users. I was an long time Quicken user up until I made the switch to a Mac about 3 years ago. Quicken on a Mac is a farce.

Quicken 2007 for Mac works quite well. I've got ~15 years worth of Quicken data, all on the Mac, and I've upgraded to every viable version that Intuit has put forth. I say "viable" because I refused to downgrade my capabilities by using that POS they call Essentials (which it's not!). So, no, Quicken is not a farce on the Mac, but you need a decent version.

C'mon, Intuit, step up and create an Intel-based, fully functional version of Quicken for Mac 2012! Enough pu55y-footing around, bite the bullet, serve your Mac customers properly, and port the code!

briloronmacrumo
Jun 17, 2011, 12:36 AM
For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Apple is predicted to be pulling the PowerPC frameworks too. Without those, Rosetta won't run.

Intuit's description of their 'plan' is not very credible. They claim a database prevents the code from moving to Intel Macs? If these are Endian issues there are remedies and Core Foundation calls. Plus, the issue(s), whatever it really is, should have been identified 5 years ago when Apple announced a move to Intel.

lilo777
Jun 17, 2011, 12:37 AM
Exactly how many more millions of users do there need to be to make it worthwhile for them?

Even Microsoft keeps office for Mac updated more often.

Most Mac users are college students. They do not need Quicken. Besides, most Mac owners have/run Windows (on Macs) anyways. They need enough users to make this business profitable and obviously those users aren't there. Nothing special. Situation with Mac-capable versions of software has improved slightly but still nobody should be surprised that companies do not want to support OS/X platform.

SamuraiArtGuy
Jun 17, 2011, 12:41 AM
Interestingly enough, they have quite the bloody RAFT of Windows products, so fire up Virtual PC or Parallels if you care to. But it does seems that they DO have some kind of intel codebase to draw on. I suspect it's less pain that starting a new rosetta-free OS X app from scratch. A proper port of the Windows code seems like a no-brainer. Seriously, even AutoCAD managed a decent port to the Mac.

Oh wait, shaking down Apple for Rosetta bits is even less work that actually writing software. But that hardly gives us anything remotely resembling feature parity.

Sad, since they do somehow manage to shovel out a set of reasonably feature equal versions of TurboTAX every year, and it's actually decent. An update every frakkin' year.

Oh wait.

The feature set in TurboTAX is determined by the IRS.

Never mind.

Fraaaa
Jun 17, 2011, 12:53 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Apple is predicted to be pulling the PowerPC frameworks too. Without those, Rosetta won't run.

Intuit's description of their 'plan' is not very credible. They claim a database prevents the code from moving to Intel Macs? If these are Endian issues there are remedies and Core Foundation calls. Plus, the issue(s), whatever it really is, should have been identified 5 years ago when Apple announced a move to Intel.

Also when OS X has been announced a decade ago Apple made clear that they were supporting 'classic', 'carbon' and 'cocoa' frameworks and that developer should move towards 'cocoa' overtime. If Quicken had been ported in 2004 they still had another 7 years ahead to update their software. And it seems clear thta even other software house managed to made their software compatible with quicken files. So this, unfortunately is poor business planning.

bankshot
Jun 17, 2011, 12:58 AM
We finally gave up on Quicken last year after many years of suffering through substandard Mac versions. We tried a few alternatives including Moneywell, Moneydance, and others, but finally settled on YNAB (You Need A Budget) - http://ynab.com.

It doesn't have the bells and whistles of Quicken and others, but we love the way it's structured. Unlike most of the other software out there, budgeting is very easy in YNAB because the whole program is based around that. It's a slightly different philosophy, but it really works well for keeping, tracking, and sticking to a budget. And of course it does all the standard account and transaction tracking with ledgers and such.

Oh, and they have a great iPhone app for logging transactions on the go, then syncing when you get back home. Works really well.

I do wish it had a few features of Quicken or others, like subcategories for transactions and more in-depth/flexible reports. I also don't like the fact that it uses Adobe Air and is therefore a bit sluggish in the UI. But the paradigm is great and I really love the fact that it's more about looking forward with your money than mostly looking back.

Quicken can die with PPC for all I care... :p

malcolmffc
Jun 17, 2011, 12:59 AM
Mac users - just buy VMWare and run the windows version in a VM. Done.

ikir
Jun 17, 2011, 01:12 AM
Why not add those features to essentials in an update seems so much more simpler let outdated technology die it has to eventually.

Indeed it is absolutely stupid.

Anyway i think you can run Quicken for Windows with Crossover!
http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/search/?name=quicken

themadrhino
Jun 17, 2011, 01:13 AM
I have been using Quicken for 16 years and have been on Quicken 2005 since I saw no benefit to upgrading 06 or 07 based on the writeups.

I downloaded Quicken Essentials for the MAC on Tuesday and was completely disappointed that it couldn't track my investments or 401K.

I have been doing research for months on a new personal finance software on the Mac and finally downloaded MoneyDance in trial mode and will probably buy. MoneyDance is a different interface but I have figured it out and it does everything my Quicken 2005 did and then some. Some of my totals didn't reconcile (Checking over 10,000 entries and had a difference of $116) but others (AMX over 13,000 entries and was spot on in being correct) so I will assume operator input error.

I don't know what to say other than Intuit gave up on Mac a long time ago and why I use TurboTax each year for some reason on Quicken they must not want the business.

In reading on MoneyDance it is compatible with Lion from what I have read under discussions. So I am going to go with MoneyDance and hopefully not look back.

Goldenbear
Jun 17, 2011, 01:40 AM
This is long (it started in 2006), but there's a lot of good info on various alternatives to Quicken:

http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/topic4065.html

Off the top of my head, the latest options seem to be (in order of my personal preference):

SEE Finance - Excellent customer service, best import of old data, very fast
MoneyWell - Best budgeting, best iPhone app, very good customer service
Moneydance - OK gui, good feature list, Windows and Linux versions available
iBank - Poor customer service, lots of features, slow, OK import of old data
Quicken Essentials - Familiar interface, poor feature list, non-existent customer service, horrible history of fixing (or not fixing) bugs

I stopped upgrading Quicken long ago, after years of giving them my hard earned money. Reported bugs were never fixed, and new bugs were introduced with each new version of Quicken, many of which were never fixed (see a trend?). With that history, why would I give them any more of my money? :rolleyes:

For now, I continue to use 2005, which came with my old Mac. I'll continue running it on my iBook until I find an alternative, which at this point will probably be SEE Finance, as soon as they add tags (sort of equivalent to Classes). MoneyWell is my 2nd choice.

-----

Off Topic

Btw, I don't use TurboTax either. TaxCut/HR Block has been my choice for nearly a decade. HR Block had a native app when OS X was released. It took Intuit a full year before they got around to it. TurboTax may be "nicer", but TaxCut/HR Block gets the job done for me, at a lower cost, and without enriching Intuit.

ktappe
Jun 17, 2011, 01:45 AM
At the risk of feeding the troll....

Most Mac users are college students.

Reference, please.

most Mac owners have/run Windows (on Macs) anyways.
Reference again, please.

Situation with Mac-capable versions of software has improved slightly but still nobody should be surprised that companies do not want to support OS/X (sic) platform.

Look at how fast WWDC sold out (hours), and how many apps are already in the Mac App Store, and tell us again that companies "do not want to support OS X." I honestly think you do not have the slightest idea what the current state of OS X development and support is.

Marx55
Jun 17, 2011, 01:55 AM
MUCH EASIER:

Just install Rosetta from Mac OS X 10.6.7 on the newer Mac OS X versions. Also for:

Eudora mail
Palm Desktop

Mark Booth
Jun 17, 2011, 01:55 AM
Apple needs to release a personal/small business finance program that is compatible with Quicken data. Apple gave us Keynote to replace Powerpoint and gave us Pages to replace Word. Time to replace Quicken. Seriously, screw 'em if they won't properly update their freakin' program.

Mark

AdrianK
Jun 17, 2011, 02:02 AM
MUCH EASIER:

Just install Rosetta from Mac OS X 10.6.7 on the newer Mac OS X versions.

Cool. There's just sort of one teeny tiny problem with that: It does not work.

mozumder
Jun 17, 2011, 02:15 AM
Quicken is easily one of the worst pieces of software ever written.

Anything from intuit is complete junk. Glad that apple is getting rid of Rosetta, so people are forced to stop using and supporting it.

It is actually better to keep paper records than to use Quicken.

linked.account
Jun 17, 2011, 02:18 AM
How lazy can be a company? Oh sorry they don't want to invest money to produce a brand new App. I just cannot accept that Snow Leopard is here more than a year- Apple dropped Rosetta in SL- and they haven't done anything, yet!
Guys, the name of your product is 2007 ! What does it say to you?? People buy new laptops and desktops in this time frame and you still haven't updated those products. I think such a movement from Apple is really needed for companies like Intuit and Adobe, since they don't respect their customers and need to be pushed by an outer force!

brettryan
Jun 17, 2011, 03:14 AM
Intuit seem to be failing lately with respect to keeping their aging technology fresh, they seem stuck in the 90s. QuickBase is another bad example from intuit already falling far behind.

I realize how hard it would be however would a migration to one of the filemaker products be viable for some users?

johneaston
Jun 17, 2011, 03:15 AM
Never heard of Quiken - just looked it up and it looks great. I want in.

But what's missing in the 'Essentials' version?

macnisse
Jun 17, 2011, 03:18 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Kudos to the project leaders of this mighty task. Will it work? Why not commit to an update for the latest version...?!

Hastings101
Jun 17, 2011, 03:24 AM
MUCH EASIER:

Just install Rosetta from Mac OS X 10.6.7 on the newer Mac OS X versions. Also for:

Eudora mail
Palm Desktop

I wish it was that easy lol. Darn Apple and their dropping of Rosetta/PowerPC Application support :mad:

If there's anything I miss from Windows, it's that Microsoft is pretty decent about compatibility with previous versions of the OS. I know supporting a different architecture might take a little more effort by Apple, but there are still quite a few PowerPC only applications out there.

usptact
Jun 17, 2011, 03:26 AM
What in the world they were doing all this time with that Quicken? Didn't they know what gas fabric they were maintaining? Just right time for another company to come up with replacement which offers the same and + functionality.

dnedved
Jun 17, 2011, 03:56 AM
I was a Quicken/QuickBooks user since the DOS 286 days. I made the transition to windows relatively painlessly and expected the transition to Mac to be as easy. Quicken for Mac is amateur and buggy software to be sure, but there aren't enough adjectives in the English language to describe how painful the experience with QuickBooks for Mac was. When Quicken doesn't work you get annoyed, but imagine if your livelihood (and being able to file your tax reports on time and thus stay out of jail) depended on a similar but infinitely more user-hostile piece of software whose outsourced paid-per-incident support can't even figure out how to do basic things like run payroll? After spending thousands with my accountant (on top of the hundreds for licenses for both pieces of software) we just gave up. If there is a business larger than a lemonade stand out there running on QB for Mac I'd be interested in hearing about it because I don't believe it's possible.

My experience with Intuit throughout the whole process has resulted in a deepseated hatred for that whole company as well as their products. For the business side you're on your own, but for the personal side I'm 100% in support of Moneydance. It runs on Mac, Linux and Windows so your financial information is never again tied to your computing platform. It's actively developed, and well-supported by friendly and knowledgeable people. It works brilliantly with things that I'd never even attempted back in Quicken such as multiple currencies, and multiple budgets. It has an iPhone app which can sync up with your real computer. It just works and I'm a huge fan.

smdapple
Jun 17, 2011, 04:28 AM
Intuit is utterly retarded.

They have completely abandoned the Mac community by making us wait years for a promised product (after years of extremely minor updates) and then falling flat on their faces as far as features go. I don't know of hardly anyone who would even consider using Essentials.

Secondly they refuse to develop any software for iOS devices that you can use to sync to Quicken so when you're on the go you can input things instead of collecting a bunch of receipts to enter later. They also wouldn't allow Landware (former developer of a great app Pocket Quicken) to develop anything either. That's because they want everyone to put their personal finance info into their databases so they can try to control our financial life and mine information from it. There is no way I'm trusting Intuit with my info.

Now I have all this data that I've spent painstaking man-months to input and sort out and now they don't even bother to update their Essentials package and instead try this hack that may or may not work or see the light of day?

Disgusting sense of responsibility to their customer base.

KnightWRX
Jun 17, 2011, 04:29 AM
Do these guys ever tire of that same old panned press statement that is not remotely factual? I guess not.

This is not an Operating System getting ported. It's a single application.

Sorry, but anyone relying on Quicken in this day and age needs to rethink their approach to managing their own assets.

How do you know they're not heavily dependant on hand written ASM/Endian trickery for their internal database ?

Static linking of the PPC frameworks into the binary and then packaging Rosetta as a launcher sounds like a doable exercise. Of course, it sounds like a lot of work and testing when they should instead be working on either bringing the missing features over to the Intel version of QE.

pubwvj
Jun 17, 2011, 05:00 AM
Apple should be maintaining compatibility for all applications all the way back. The computers, even an iPodTouch, have the computing power necessary to emulate all the previous machines. There is a tremendous amount of software that was never upgraded to PowerPC and then to Intel. Developers went out of business. But many users, especially in small businesses and education, still use that software. This is a great resource. It is a shame for Apple to abandon it. If they're doing this for Quicken they should do it for all applications.

Some people say upgrade to alternative software but are no alternative titles for a lot of the software. Apple should not be abandoning Rosetta and they should not have abandoned Classic. They are an enormous company with tremendous resources. They could easily keep emulation for these older systems going.

It is irresponsible of Apple to create obsolescence of hardware by discontinuing operating system and technical support for older systems. This policy of Apple's creates more trash filling the landfills and is a waste of resources.

The solution is for Apple to make new software intelligently scaleable such that it recognizes the hardware it is being installed on and adjusts to fit within the memory footprint and hardware's capabilities. Yes, certain new features like transparent window shadows will not be available but there are many improvements which can be continued to offer for older hardware such as the folders in the new iOS which do not need any advanced hardware capability.

The benefit to Apple is they can continue getting sales of operating systems each year as they offer new versions of the OS with new features. Additionally Apple will gain more market penetration as the old hardware is kept active and passed down in families resulting in a larger user installed base. Charge for the technical support - obviously. Just keep offering AppleCare.

Apple should also encourage developers to support the furthest back operating systems and hardware possible.

angrynstupid
Jun 17, 2011, 05:14 AM
Sounds like they just ain't got the brain power to write the code.

ranReloaded
Jun 17, 2011, 05:17 AM
Oh my God, and then we bash Adobe? Seriously?

ranReloaded
Jun 17, 2011, 05:26 AM
Apple should be maintaining compatibility for all applications all the way back. The computers, even an iPodTouch, have the computing power necessary to emulate all the previous machines. There is a tremendous amount of software that was never upgraded to PowerPC and then to Intel. Developers went out of business. But many users, especially in small businesses and education, still use that software. This is a great resource. It is a shame for Apple to abandon it. If they're doing this for Quicken they should do it for all applications.

Some people say upgrade to alternative software but are no alternative titles for a lot of the software. Apple should not be abandoning Rosetta and they should not have abandoned Classic. They are an enormous company with tremendous resources. They could easily keep emulation for these older systems going.

It is irresponsible of Apple to create obsolescence of hardware by discontinuing operating system and technical support for older systems. This policy of Apple's creates more trash filling the landfills and is a waste of resources.

The solution is for Apple to make new software intelligently scaleable such that it recognizes the hardware it is being installed on and adjusts to fit within the memory footprint and hardware's capabilities. Yes, certain new features like transparent window shadows will not be available but there are many improvements which can be continued to offer for older hardware such as the folders in the new iOS which do not need any advanced hardware capability.

The benefit to Apple is they can continue getting sales of operating systems each year as they offer new versions of the OS with new features. Additionally Apple will gain more market penetration as the old hardware is kept active and passed down in families resulting in a larger user installed base. Charge for the technical support - obviously. Just keep offering AppleCare.

Apple should also encourage developers to support the furthest back operating systems and hardware possible.

Sorry, but no. It's a bit more complicated than that.

The truth is, software developers should rely more on platform APIs and do less dirty hacks.
IF you started developing your app around the time Cocoa was available AND you've been doing things the right way (future proof, no gambling) AND you don't want to get away with "write once, debug everywhere"-syle B.S., then at most a recompile should do the trick.

Vendors can't support everything forever; that stagnates innovation and ties both their hands and feet. Look at Windows if you don't believe me.

Eric-PTEK
Jun 17, 2011, 05:33 AM
Intuit is pure trash.

If you think this is bad you should look at the PC versions. We support a lot of customers running QB and mostly in multiple version environments(CPA's, bookkeepers, etc).

It's horrible software and most of it is centered around their database implementation. They run one single DB instance, regardless of how many copies or what version of QB file it is serving. They have their own internal DB security and different versions will change the master key all by itself locking others out.

It's a mess. Intuit has for a LONG time needed to use a 3rd party DB provider for serving their data. Something that works. A move to SQL Server on Windows, or mySQL on the Mac would go a long long way to fixing their problems.

But when you own 90ish percent of the market, and Peachtree is worse, why change?

Les Kern
Jun 17, 2011, 05:49 AM
Never happen. Bye bye Quicken.

marksman
Jun 17, 2011, 05:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Why not just add the features missing to the current quicken. This seems like a waste of resources by intuit.

Les Kern
Jun 17, 2011, 05:53 AM
MUCH EASIER:

Just install Rosetta from Mac OS X 10.6.7 on the newer Mac OS X versions. Also for:

Eudora mail
Palm Desktop

Palm? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Wait... install Rosetta? Friend, do you even understand what's going on here?

bpaluzzi
Jun 17, 2011, 06:04 AM
Most Mac users are college students.
Besides, most Mac owners have/run Windows
Situation with Mac-capable versions of software has improved slightly but still nobody should be surprised that companies do not want to support OS/X platform.

I see you're still up to your usual self -- making up stuff and passing it off as fact, regardless of how nonsensical/incorrect it is.

spazzcat
Jun 17, 2011, 06:22 AM
Apple should be maintaining compatibility for all applications all the way back. ....
It is irresponsible of Apple to create obsolescence of hardware by discontinuing operating system and technical support for older systems. This policy of Apple's creates more trash filling the landfills and is a waste of resources.

The solution is for Apple to make new software intelligently scaleable such that it recognizes the hardware it is being installed on and adjusts to fit within the memory footprint and hardware's capabilities. Yes, certain new features like transparent window shadows will not be available but there are many improvements which can be continued to offer for older hardware such as the folders in the new iOS which do not need any advanced hardware capability.

The benefit to Apple is they can continue getting sales of operating systems each year as they offer new versions of the OS with new features. Additionally Apple will gain more market penetration as the old hardware is kept active and passed down in families resulting in a larger user installed base. Charge for the technical support - obviously. Just keep offering AppleCare.

Apple should also encourage developers to support the furthest back operating systems and hardware possible.

This is one of the main reasons OSX runs so much better. If you try to keep all the old code in the OS layer to run very old apps it slows down everything else. Apple keeps their OS clean which means they have to limit backwards compatibility...

seamuskrat
Jun 17, 2011, 06:28 AM
I full get that technology moves on and Apple is known for more cutting edge formats and standards than Windows (in many cases).

That said, why can't Rosetta be included? If there is an associated licensing cost I can see Apple making that distinction. But if it were to be an optional install and has no performance hit for being trhere, then provide the functionality to the user base. Not everyone has to be curting edge and always update. Some do have legacy apps that are business critical.

Yes, Intuit is a bunch of tools for making a new Quicken tha is so nerfed to be nearly useless. Quicken 2007 was a mature product that many based their personal and business life on. It is a shame that they now are forced to decide to upgrade or not.

I just do not see why Apple could not include Rosetta as good will unless there is a cost associated. Yes the PPC transition was years ago, but for some, conversion is not an easy option and the benefits of Lion are essential as well. We want the Mac to be a viable platform, and the more we are limited by arbitrary rules it hurts the entire community.

seamuskrat
Jun 17, 2011, 06:30 AM
This is one of the main reasons OSX runs so much better. If you try to keep all the old code in the OS layer to run very old apps it slows down everything else. Apple keeps their OS clean which means they have to limit backwards compatibility...

I think this is a cop out.
To my experience, Rosetta never impaired Intel performance. Yes, Rosetta emulation was slower than native, but that is the price you pay. Merely having Rosetta installed made no difference.

Many utilities exist to strip out PPC code from Universal apps as well so save space.

Make it an optional install, and those us of with no legacy apps can run Lion and those who depend on legacy apps may run Lion with Rosetta.

goosnarrggh
Jun 17, 2011, 06:35 AM
Weird. Sounds like it would be easier just to start over and build the damn thing from the ground up.

They've started doing that... It's called Quicken Essentials... and so far, it appears to be a lame duck at best. They probably figure that they have several years of work ahead of them before Essentials is able to evolve to the point of being a worthwhile successor to Quicken 2007.

In the mean time, if Quicken 2007 stops working, they'd be left with no full-featured product to offer to their Mac customers.

They seem to think that allocating engineering resources to embedding their own copy of licensed Rosetta technologies might be the most efficient (or perhaps only) way to deliver a full-featured product for Lion in anything close to an acceptable timeframe.

bbeagle
Jun 17, 2011, 06:40 AM
That said, why can't Rosetta be included?

Most likely support costs. For Rosetta to continue, there would have to be a support team at Apple in charge of it. 4 or 5 people to answer calls, make sure the software packages install correctly in each subsequent OS X version, fix security bugs, be paid a salary, take up space in Apple buildings, and something else that takes Apple's management's attention (for even a minisule piece of time) when their attention should be on the future.

There is no ROI (Return on Investment) for something like this, so it's cancelled.

Can you take your VCR to Best Buy for repair? Probably not. At some point, companies have to choose whether the money they make is worth it or not. Even something like SELLING a VCR, even though it seems like it would be no problem, takes up retail space, and time from associates answering questions about it, etc. that it's just not worth it at some point.

darkplanets
Jun 17, 2011, 07:02 AM
Odd approach.

You would have thought they would just, oh, I don't know, invest those resources for developing out the most current intel compatible version?

BornAgainMac
Jun 17, 2011, 07:04 AM
Besides the many other options like moving to another application, iOS app, or using the modern Quicken Windows version, just spend $50 bucks to purchase an old iMac and run Quicken on that.

JHankwitz
Jun 17, 2011, 07:09 AM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

Everyone I know is switching to iBank 4. The boneheads at Quicken are too dumb to realize that they would have far more Mac than PC customers if their Mac software was at least on par with what they've developed on Windoz. I think iBank is going to capture the Mac market. It's GUI is outstanding and it's pure 64 bit.

attila
Jun 17, 2011, 07:16 AM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

The application hasn't been updated for 4 years. You'd best be exporting your tables as Excel, XML or some comma-separated file, and import to a new app.

Or just don't upgrade your Mac, which Quicken doesn't seem to have.

swhay
Jun 17, 2011, 07:17 AM
I run Parallels with Windows 7 just so I can run Quicken 2011. Works fine, but there is the added expense of Windows, Parallels, memory, etc.

It looks like Intuit is simply incapable of porting the product to Mac. With the growing market share, the number of people switching to Mac, a new generation of graduates that are Mac Centric, and the popularity of iOS - I would think Intuit would pay attention.

The only app I use that needs Rosetta is the Mac client for PC Anywhere I still must access PCs remotely using PC Anywhere. I will Probably need to start using remote desktop. But many PCs will need to be reconfigured,,,,

Look into TeamViewer, that might be a good alternative to PC Anywhere.

NERunner
Jun 17, 2011, 07:20 AM
About three years ago I started my transition to a Mac-only computer lifestyle. During that time, until a month ago, I have maintained a windows xp desktop and an iMac. THe windows desktop existed only because I could not find robust mac alternatives to Microsoft Access and Money.

Several weeks ago, I finally invested in FileMaker Pro and have begun the process of porting my several large database from Access.

The transition from Money to Quicken Mac Essentials (QME) has been profoundly frustrating. I too read the nearly universal bad reviews of Mac Essentials before plopping my money down. I am/was a hardcore Money user since its inception in 1991. So like the many long-time quicken users, I had a lot of historic financial data that I did not want to lose. I was sucked into the fact that I would "easily" be able to convert my data to QME. Additionally, I hoped that the application was just a starting point for the application and that perhaps Quicken would follow up with a more capable version in the future.

First, the conversion process was not simple. When I downloaded the conversion app, I learned (after contacting tech support) that I had to download the full Quicken for Windows app first. Thus the conversion process goes like this: open MS Money data file in conversion app. Open converted file in Quicken for windows. Copy quicken file to Mac machine and open (convert) file in QME. It did work, but it struck me as inefficient and poorly designed.

The application, for which I had low expectations, seems to at least maintain bank accounts and provide budgeting and reporting functionality. These functions are limited at best. Additionally, the register interface and entry process is much less efficient than Money. This is a huge frustration.

While QME may in some way seem aesthetically slick, the lack of functionality is appalling even for things it can do. Although I thought Money did not provide great opportunities to create custom spending & budget reports, QME is even more limited.

I was heartened when ver 1.5 was released as it was, to me, an indication that the company was working to improve and build on the product, but I am very worried that they are going to dump further development of it. I scour the web weekly looking for any news about a version 2.0 to no avail.

I wonder if the folks at Quicken are aware of the (to say the least) dissatisfaction of Mac users for their product. If so, why not make an explicit public declaration that they are committed to make QME a solid personal finance program and that their goal is to create functionality parity with its other Quicken products? I sense no guiding principle to their Quicken product plans. As many here have pointed out, the Mac platform is growing substantially and the market, seems to me, to be fertile for growth for QME.

Sorry for the long post, and to anyone who has spent the time to read this. I can only assume that misery loves company.

Thunderhawks
Jun 17, 2011, 07:21 AM
Instead of developing an acceptable version they want to hack a version that is almost 5 years old to work? That is ridiculous. Quicken Essentials for Mac definitely shows whats little effort they put towards developing for the Mac community. At this point I would buy Microsoft Money if it was made for the Mac before giving my money to Intuit to only be told "Go F Yourself" in return.

What a bunch of $h@& from the Intuit VP.

What he is saying is that it isn't worth their while to do things for the Mac.

The PC version always had more features and with essentials they took away
features from 2007, which is why people who have been using Quicken for a long time do not "upgrade" to the subpar versions on sale now.

Besides never caring about the Mac users, maybe they are just to dumb to write the code for Macs even with intel chips?

Edit: Mentioned above also, read it after my post.

Why not outsource the code writing or have Apple do it for you? Millions of people sitting in India waiting for it!

eric_n_dfw
Jun 17, 2011, 07:27 AM
My wife and I were long time Quicken for Windows users in the early 90's and were shocked at how bad the Mac version was when we switched in 1999. We struggled along, ignoring the bugs until they got so bad that we left for other tools around 2008. We tried ChaChing, MoneyDance, iBank, GnuCash and CrossOver Office for Quicken and Money which was still pretty buggy too. None of the Mac ones worked very well and the windows stuff really wasn't stable under CrossOver (wine).

We even tried Quicken in VMWare but found it wasn't really much better and lost an entire afternoon's worth of reconsilianion work because we dared to put the Data file in a dropbox folder for backups. Money looked promising but Microsoft out a bullet in it's head so that's no longer an option.

We've settled on MoneyWell but it has bugs too.

I hadn't heard of See Finance before, maybe I will give it a shot.

lucidmedia
Jun 17, 2011, 07:27 AM
No one is forcing you to upgrade to the next operating system. If quicken is so important to you, don't upgrade!

Thunderhawks
Jun 17, 2011, 07:28 AM
Everyone I know is switching to iBank 4. The boneheads at Quicken are too dumb to realize that they would have far more Mac than PC customers if their Mac software was at least on par with what they've developed on Windoz. I think iBank is going to capture the Mac market. It's GUI is outstanding and it's pure 64 bit.

I tried iBank also out of frustration about Intuit and like the look and feel, but unless I don't know what I am doing IMO it requires too many clicks to enter something.
With Quicken you hit the return button and get a new register row to enter the next transaction.
I wrote the company about it and they say it's scheduled for development, whatever that means.

Anybody that will offer a good alternative to Quicken will rule the MAC market in that field. Can't wait to ditch Quicken.

bbeagle
Jun 17, 2011, 07:36 AM
Sorry for the long post, and to anyone who has spent the time to read this. I can only assume that misery loves company.

I understand completely. I went through the same thing.

Quicken/Microsoft Money was the only program I could not find an equal for in the mac world. It was the only program I still had to use in windows, and eventually I bought VMWare, and booted into windows for Microsoft Money.

I saw Quicken for Mac, but it was so bad compared to the windows version, that VMWare was the better solution.

Quicken (or even Microsoft) could make a lot of money if they could develop a decent program for macs. I've tried other money management programs on the mac, but to this day, nothing is right for my needs except Quicken/Microsoft Money in windows.

dexthageek
Jun 17, 2011, 07:37 AM
I use vmware to run Windows7 Bootcamp partition on my iMac. Quicken for Windows > Quicken Essentials.

I still struggle to see the reason(s) why Intuit decided to cripple their OSX offerings.

Northgrove
Jun 17, 2011, 07:43 AM
Yuck.. The software developer within me is crying now. Kludgefest 2011 Proudly Presents Quicken 2007!

Northgrove
Jun 17, 2011, 07:45 AM
Oh my God, and then we bash Adobe? Seriously?
?

There are only one company you're allowed to complain on? If Company A is doing something worse than Company B although both companies have business practices you dislike => Then you shall not be allowed to have problems with Company B's software? You must then only complain about Company A?

Where is any sort of logic in this argument?

jonnysods
Jun 17, 2011, 07:49 AM
I guess they have known that sooner or later this was coming and now it's here. But I feel bad for companies that are going to be gimped by 10.7

Chris Blount
Jun 17, 2011, 07:50 AM
I just looked at Moneydance and that seems to be the best way to move from Quicken. It will import Quicken data files and has a good look and feel.

Guess I will make the move tonight. :) Bye bye Intuit!

themadrhino
Jun 17, 2011, 07:50 AM
This is long (it started in 2006), but there's a lot of good info on various alternatives to Quicken:

http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/applications/topic4065.html

Off the top of my head, the latest options seem to be (in order of my personal preference):

SEE Finance - Excellent customer service, best import of old data, very fast
MoneyWell - Best budgeting, best iPhone app, very good customer service
Moneydance - OK gui, good feature list, Windows and Linux versions available
iBank - Poor customer service, lots of features, slow, OK import of old data
Quicken Essentials - Familiar interface, poor feature list, non-existent customer service, horrible history of fixing (or not fixing) bugs

I stopped upgrading Quicken long ago, after years of giving them my hard earned money. Reported bugs were never fixed, and new bugs were introduced with each new version of Quicken, many of which were never fixed (see a trend?). With that history, why would I give them any more of my money? :rolleyes:

For now, I continue to use 2005, which came with my old Mac. I'll continue running it on my iBook until I find an alternative, which at this point will probably be SEE Finance, as soon as they add tags (sort of equivalent to Classes). MoneyWell is my 2nd choice.

-----

Off Topic

Btw, I don't use TurboTax either. TaxCut/HR Block has been my choice for nearly a decade. HR Block had a native app when OS X was released. It took Intuit a full year before they got around to it. TurboTax may be "nicer", but TaxCut/HR Block gets the job done for me, at a lower cost, and without enriching Intuit.

Hello and thank you for your post. SEE Finance does look good as well as Moneywell. It was helpful.

Thunderhawks
Jun 17, 2011, 07:55 AM
I see you're still up to your usual self -- making up stuff and passing it off as fact, regardless of how nonsensical/incorrect it is.

We have the other extreme too much pro Apple also.

The common sense people know that not everything Apple does is good, but they try and hit the majority right.

Since I have had Mac's since 1984 ever since SJ came back they have been on an incredible tear of innovation and game changing products.

They have IMO led mobile computing by moving us away from desktops to books and will now get us to a set up where we will do anything we want on the go.

With icloud you can have all your stuff everywhere where there is a computer to log into.

And just to mention a real fact to lilo777:

MacBooks and MBP's have been selling in record numbers while the PC market is flat.

As dumb as we make people out to be, they sense and know a good product when they see one.

I have personally switched many PC users to the MAC. They love the ease of use and never looked back.

lilo777 another candidate for my ignore list.

southernpaws
Jun 17, 2011, 07:57 AM
Apple should be maintaining compatibility for all applications all the way back. The computers, even an iPodTouch, have the computing power necessary to emulate all the previous machines. There is a tremendous amount of software that was never upgraded to PowerPC and then to Intel. Developers went out of business. But many users, especially in small businesses and education, still use that software. This is a great resource. It is a shame for Apple to abandon it. If they're doing this for Quicken they should do it for all applications.

Some people say upgrade to alternative software but are no alternative titles for a lot of the software. Apple should not be abandoning Rosetta and they should not have abandoned Classic. They are an enormous company with tremendous resources. They could easily keep emulation for these older systems going.

It is irresponsible of Apple to create obsolescence of hardware by discontinuing operating system and technical support for older systems. This policy of Apple's creates more trash filling the landfills and is a waste of resources.

The solution is for Apple to make new software intelligently scaleable such that it recognizes the hardware it is being installed on and adjusts to fit within the memory footprint and hardware's capabilities. Yes, certain new features like transparent window shadows will not be available but there are many improvements which can be continued to offer for older hardware such as the folders in the new iOS which do not need any advanced hardware capability.

The benefit to Apple is they can continue getting sales of operating systems each year as they offer new versions of the OS with new features. Additionally Apple will gain more market penetration as the old hardware is kept active and passed down in families resulting in a larger user installed base. Charge for the technical support - obviously. Just keep offering AppleCare.

Apple should also encourage developers to support the furthest back operating systems and hardware possible.

It would be nice, but it's really an idealistic idea. It's simply not how technology works.

Le Big Mac
Jun 17, 2011, 08:12 AM
Mac users - just buy VMWare and run the windows version in a VM. Done.

So buy:
VMWare
Windows
Quicken for Windows
?

Seems like a rather expensive solution.

Le Big Mac
Jun 17, 2011, 08:15 AM
Intuit is utterly retarded.

They have completely abandoned the Mac community by making us wait years for a promised product (after years of extremely minor updates) and then falling flat on their faces as far as features go. I don't know of hardly anyone who would even consider using Essentials.

I think we can all agree that Quicken for Mac, and Intuit both suck. Clearly Intuit has decided that it doesn't make business sense to pursue the Mac market. Disappointing, but that's life.

I do take solace in the fact that they haven't earned much from Mac users recently because they keep promising vaporware that never develops. I've been using Q06 for 5 years now, and it seems like a lot of other posters are doing the same (or Q07 or Q05). The best thing about that is that we haven't had to give Quicken any more money. At least they've had the courtesy not to cut off features (as they did before with their 3-year online shutoff).

Intuit, I bid you farewell.

Hberg
Jun 17, 2011, 08:20 AM
I am currently using Quicken for Mac 2007, and I am only using it to track transactions history for Credit Cards and Banking Accounts. Will Quicken Essentials work to track transaction history for Credit Cards and Bank Accounts, and will it allow one to reconcile those accounts with the monthly statements?

It really is too bad that Intuit will not invest in a quality product for Mac users, but I do not feel as though there is much of a viable solution. SEE Finance seems like another logical solution, but it is an unknown entity in my eyes.

Chris Blount
Jun 17, 2011, 08:29 AM
I am currently using Quicken for Mac 2007, and I am only using it to track transactions history for Credit Cards and Banking Accounts. Will Quicken Essentials work to track transaction history for Credit Cards and Bank Accounts, and will it allow one to reconcile those accounts with the monthly statements?

It really is too bad that Intuit will not invest in a quality product for Mac users, but I do not feel as though there is much of a viable solution. SEE Finance seems like another logical solution, but it is an unknown entity in my eyes.Yes, Quicken essentials will do all of that but think about the future. With Intuit abandoning older versions of Quicken, it's possible that they could eventually stop supporting Quicken Essentials.

I'm personally moving to something else. Intuit is unreliable for Mac users.

NAG
Jun 17, 2011, 08:39 AM
I have an idea, instead of wrapping Quicken 2007 for Mac with Rosetta, why don't they do a cider port of the Windows version? It isn't like this isn't possible already. (http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/search/?name=quicken&company=&medal=&date_start%5B1%5D=1&date_start%5B2%5D=1&date_start%5B0%5D=2000&date_start%5B3%5D=0&date_start%5B4%5D=00&date_end%5B1%5D=6&date_end%5B2%5D=18&date_end%5B0%5D=2011&date_end%5B3%5D=8&date_end%5B4%5D=38&search=app) If you're going to go with a lazy and half assed support of your product for an entire segment of users you might as well give them the latest version that is actually feature complete for once. :rolleyes:

MacVault
Jun 17, 2011, 08:40 AM
Whoa! I commented last night without having read the OP. Just read it. Wow, Intuit is SOOO retarded! "Imposible" to port code over to Intel? But just about every other dev, even little one-man shops, can do it virtually overnight.

Dear Intuit, if all you aspire to do is kludge together an already bastardized piece of software to run on intel by propping it up with a dead technology such as Rosetta, just save yourself the hassle already and do what you should have done long ago - KILL QUICKEN FOR THE MAC! It's like you're trying to keep it on life support and its kicking and screaming for you to pull the plug because you know not how to properly care of it. Intuit, YOU ARE SO DUMB...

...and shame on Apple if they help you put Rosetta into Quicken - giving you, Intuit, an easy way out. A way to be lazy so you don't have to step up and code natively for Intel!

Apple should take this opportunity to say, "GOODBYE Intuit... We will build a personal finance manager to end all other personal finance managers." Apple could build the iTunes of personal finance managers.

Good riddance, Intuit :mad:

chaynes
Jun 17, 2011, 08:44 AM
"Intuit is just horrendous for Mac. I'm amazed that they even bother trying."

Kinda the point. They didn't bother trying. Millions of Mac owners has never been enough for a lot of developers. Over the long haul they'll have to do better but this is the mess we have now. The sort of intimidation hoax MS has pulled off through the years has actually set personal computing back almost to the extent of another failed resource... TV.

*LTD*
Jun 17, 2011, 08:50 AM
Whoa! I commented last night without having read the OP. Just read it. Wow, Intuit is SOOO retarded! "Imposible" to port code over to Intel? But just about every other dev, even little one-man shops, can do it virtually overnight.

Dear Intuit, if all you aspire to do is kludge together an already bastardized piece of software to run on intel but propping it up with a dead technology such as Rosetta, just save yourself the hassle and do what you should have done long ago - KILL QUICKEN FOR THE MAC ALREADY! It's like you're trying to keep it on life support and its kicking and screaming for you to pull the plug because you know not how to properly care of it. Intuit, YOU ARE SO DUMB...

...and shame on Apple if they help you put Rosetta into Quicken - giving you, Intuit, an easy way out. A way to be lazy so you don't have to step up and code from the ground up!

Apple should take this opportunity to say, GOODBYE Intuit. We will build a personal finance manager to end all other personal finance managers. Apple should build the iTunes of personal finance managers.

Good riddance, Intuit :mad:

They're the Quark of accounting software.

ozyr
Jun 17, 2011, 08:51 AM
I recently gave up on Intuit (with Lion approaching), and have switched to MoneyWell. While it lacks a few things Quicken has, I can deal with it. Plus, v2 is coming up, so hopefully some things I miss will be added to MW.

Goodbye Intuit...

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 17, 2011, 08:52 AM
So buy:
VMWare
Windows
Quicken for Windows
?

Seems like a rather expensive solution.

If software like this is essential to a user, here's the options:

Don't go Lion- your computer & software will continue to work as it does now. Rosetta will continue to run. Rosetta-dependent software will continue to function.
Create a small Snow Leopard partition, then boot into that when you need to run select PPC software in Rosetta.
Embrace one of the Windows emulators and upgrade to the Windows version.
Gripe, complain, vent, whine about this spilled milk but, as always, once it's spilled...


The first two options won't cost you anything in terms of dollars (the first one will save you $29). If there is some hope in the 4th one that Apple will "come around", a masses execution of #1 is the best chance at it (but I don't see that happening).

#2 appears to be an easy answer at no $ cost that also supports desires to upgrade OS X to the latest & greatest.

#3 is the solution I use now, which does involve a fair amount of cost but also facilitates the ability to use any other software for the Windows platform (of which there are countless titles NOT available for ANY version of the Mac OS- classic, PPC or Intel. If you sometimes wish you could run more than just an updated version of Quicken, spread the cost of the emulator + Windows around to all of the Windows stuff you want to be able to run and it makes the cost seem increasingly small.

#4 seems to be the one many are embracing. It accomplishes nothing.

riverfreak
Jun 17, 2011, 08:54 AM
Do these guys ever tire of that same old panned press statement that is not remotely factual? I guess not.

This is not an Operating System getting ported. It's a single application.

Sorry, but anyone relying on Quicken in this day and age needs to rethink their approach to managing their own assets.

Some people may have decades of data in Quicken. The goofy proprietary qif format and lack of feature parity in any applications make it difficult to migrate.

As much ire as there is directed at Intuit -- and believe me I share it -- it might be worthwhile to consider why still to this day there isn't a clear alternative.

hayesk
Jun 17, 2011, 08:56 AM
including its own custom-built database engine

And this highlights why Quicken is such a terrible software company.

Why did they waste time on a custom-built database engine when there are several around that can work for them just as well?

Why did they have a different file format between Mac and Windows?

Quicken may have talented developers, but those who actually design and architect their software are absolute idiots.

*LTD*
Jun 17, 2011, 08:57 AM
Apple should be maintaining compatibility for all applications all the way back. The computers, even an iPodTouch, have the computing power necessary to emulate all the previous machines. There is a tremendous amount of software that was never upgraded to PowerPC and then to Intel. Developers went out of business. But many users, especially in small businesses and education, still use that software. This is a great resource. It is a shame for Apple to abandon it. If they're doing this for Quicken they should do it for all applications.

Some people say upgrade to alternative software but are no alternative titles for a lot of the software. Apple should not be abandoning Rosetta and they should not have abandoned Classic. They are an enormous company with tremendous resources. They could easily keep emulation for these older systems going.

It is irresponsible of Apple to create obsolescence of hardware by discontinuing operating system and technical support for older systems. This policy of Apple's creates more trash filling the landfills and is a waste of resources.

The solution is for Apple to make new software intelligently scaleable such that it recognizes the hardware it is being installed on and adjusts to fit within the memory footprint and hardware's capabilities. Yes, certain new features like transparent window shadows will not be available but there are many improvements which can be continued to offer for older hardware such as the folders in the new iOS which do not need any advanced hardware capability.

The benefit to Apple is they can continue getting sales of operating systems each year as they offer new versions of the OS with new features. Additionally Apple will gain more market penetration as the old hardware is kept active and passed down in families resulting in a larger user installed base. Charge for the technical support - obviously. Just keep offering AppleCare.

Apple should also encourage developers to support the furthest back operating systems and hardware possible.

Do you honestly think Apple will keep old kludge in their OS for the sake of a few applications that never got updated? If you've been using the same application for years on end under some form of emulation, you've got to accept that at some point it's going to stop working. I mean, this is basic stuff. You can only hang on to AppleWorks (for example, and before that ClarisWorks - going back to 1994) for so long until you have to call it a day.

The solution is simple, and everyone is going to have to do it at some point:

UPGRADE.

Hberg
Jun 17, 2011, 08:59 AM
I am currently using Quicken for Mac 2007, and I am only using it to track transactions history for Credit Cards and Banking Accounts. Will Quicken Essentials work to track transaction history for Credit Cards and Bank Accounts, and will it allow one to reconcile those accounts with the monthly statements?

It really is too bad that Intuit will not invest in a quality product for Mac users, but I do not feel as though there is much of a viable solution. SEE Finance seems like another logical solution, but it is an unknown entity in my eyes.

Yes, Quicken Essentials will do all of that but think about the future. With Intuit abandoning older versions of Quicken, it's possible that they could eventually stop supporting Quicken Essentials.

I'm personally moving to something else. Intuit is unreliable for Mac users.

Thanks, Chris. Intuit is even questioning the long term viability of Quicken Essentials. That is why I am seriously considering SEE Finance.

It is a capitalistic society and the consumer votes with their pocketbook. If all Mac users voted with their pocketbook, it would be interesting to see the impact on Intuit's Quarterly Earnings.

WestonHarvey1
Jun 17, 2011, 08:59 AM
What is wrong with you people? This may in fact be the only option Intuit has that makes any kind of business sense. It's called legacy software, and it's expensive to maintain. They're not going to make any new money off this product, and the conversion costs could very well be insane.

They have a path going forward with a new code base. It may not be going well enough for you, but it's nice they're coming up with a solution for the old software at all.

NAG
Jun 17, 2011, 09:01 AM
As much ire as there is directed at Intuit -- and believe me I share it -- it might be worthwhile to consider why still to this day there isn't a clear alternative.

Because most people don't bother to track their finances and when they do they often pay someone else to do it for them.

It's kind of like how almost all science applications have horrendous UIs and quite a few are still CLI based.

As far as the Windows users, I would actually seriously consider jumping ship. If this is what they consider support for Mac users do you think when push comes to shove they'll help you?

ULFoaf
Jun 17, 2011, 09:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Quicken has become a fat, lazy arrogant company. I have used then for 19 years. They offer nothing but force you to upgrade. Not positive, but it wasn't even possible to read Windows version data into the Mac version! If that is not lazy & arrogant, I don't know what is. Worst of all, they completely ignore mobile devices & the demand for tracking transactions through your phone. Once you start that, there is no going back!

I am giving iBank a try. So far, not bad after 6 weeks.

*LTD*
Jun 17, 2011, 09:26 AM
Rosetta debuted when, January 2006?

Users (the few that relied on Rosetta) have had over 5 years to upgrade their software or transition to an alternative.

5 years, people. 60 months.

That's really all that needs to be said.

NERunner
Jun 17, 2011, 09:37 AM
Rosetta debuted when, January 2006?

Users (the few that relied on Rosetta) have had over 5 years to upgrade their software or transition to an alternative.

5 years, people. 60 months.

That's really all that needs to be said.

Yes, this is true, but the fact remains that a robust, full-featured personal finance program still does not exist for the Mac operating system.

marmotton
Jun 17, 2011, 09:37 AM
Instead of developing an acceptable version they want to hack a version that is almost 5 years old to work? That is ridiculous. Quicken Essentials for Mac definitely shows whats little effort they put towards developing for the Mac community. At this point I would buy Microsoft Money if it was made for the Mac before giving my money to Intuit to only be told "Go F Yourself" in return.

I think there is a huge opportunity for a smart developer to take the market for the entire Mac platform. Quicklen is so bad that it should be easy to crush.

What the new app though needs is
1. the converter to seeminglessly and reliably transfer legacy quicken files to the new format.
2. Simple, high usability data entry
3. portfolio tracking with automated EOD daily quote updates and performance tracking that works (as opposed to Quicken's which does not)

The rest is gravy. IMOO

But feel free to add/edit

*LTD*
Jun 17, 2011, 09:39 AM
Yes, this is true, but the fact remains that a robust, full-featured personal finance program still does not exist for the Mac operating system.

Is there enough demand for it? I'm guessing a lot depends on that, though there might be other reasons. There is certainly no shortage of development for OS X.

marmotton
Jun 17, 2011, 09:48 AM
I think this is a cop out.
To my experience, Rosetta never impaired Intel performance. Yes, Rosetta emulation was slower than native, but that is the price you pay. Merely having Rosetta installed made no difference.

Many utilities exist to strip out PPC code from Universal apps as well so save space.

Make it an optional install, and those us of with no legacy apps can run Lion and those who depend on legacy apps may run Lion with Rosetta.

That's very accurate: you don't even realize in Snow Leopard when you are runing legacy PPC code. Now that I am running Lion, I suddenly can see which applications were still PPC and let me tell you, I had no idea. Rosetta is totally seamless in its present implementation and that's going to create a lot of bad surprises for people who migrate to Lion without realizing they are still using these legacy applications. There is nothing in the Lion install that warns you about that, at least as of Dev Prev 4.

Thunderhawks
Jun 17, 2011, 10:01 AM
Is there enough demand for it? I'm guessing a lot depends on that, though there might be other reasons. There is certainly no shortage of development for OS X.

Yes, there is.

Everybody (not just here) is complaining, reviewers, people with older Quicken versions.

It seems that no developer keeps up with changing requests by users.

Because of Quicken frustration, I tested:

iBank 4
Everything you enter requires a lot of clicking. Some obstructed vieWs
requires window moving.
Apps that are too mouse happy shouldn't be out there.
Return and enter to confirm what I want to do is a MUST.
Not having to click a plus sign.

Reading reviews and consumer blogs, they promise a lot , but then don't do it!

They do have a trial version!

SeeFinance New kid on the block

First impression:

Promising, imported Quicken files easily.
Instead of a trial version you can use it , but will have a 5 second splash window delay and being asked to register until you do.

At 29.99 intro worth a try.

Steps
-------
Export Quicken file to desktop or whatever location
Import into SEE Finance

worked well and without mistakes.

No preferences enabled to view ALL transaction types in an ALL transactions list view window. Maybe not critical if autofill works.

Entering info also too mouse happy (pull down menu, but at least a lot can be done via the keyboard.

I need some more working experience with it in order to be fair to developer.

Potential good.

Again, yes, there is a market:-), but nobody has stepped up yet to do it right for the MAC.

KnightWRX
Jun 17, 2011, 10:04 AM
And this highlights why Quicken is such a terrible software company.

Why did they waste time on a custom-built database engine when there are several around that can work for them just as well?

Because that's how you did things in the 80s and 90s. A lot of these codebases dateback to darker years of IT/Programming where we (software developers, IT administrators) just didn't have access to things like SQLite, MySQL or other database engines on the cheap with a capacity to bundle them with our products or where doing so would cause serious performance penalties (remember, back then, we had computers with CPU clock speeds ranging from low single digit MHZ to low hundreds of MHZ, 1 core, less than 100 MB of RAM).

The problem is very much that Intuit sat on their laurels and never put any effort into updating the App. Moving it to Core Data, Cocoa, would have guaranteed that it would have just built for Intel back when the tools were released in 2005-2006. That would've required some work on the App though, not just shipping their outdated PPC code-base.

And this is why Apple can't keep transitional technologies around. Developers are lazy. You can deprecate APIs all you want, no one will move away if you keep patching them, Q&Aing them and making sure they work.

moderately
Jun 17, 2011, 10:24 AM
I inherited my first version of Quicken and kept it years longer than I thought I should. When I finally upgraded to Q07 I was shocked at how little the feature set had improved. Don't plan on sending them anymore money. Glad I spent as little as I did with them.

castlema
Jun 17, 2011, 10:30 AM
Besides the many other options like moving to another application, iOS app, or using the modern Quicken Windows version, just spend $50 bucks to purchase an old iMac and run Quicken on that.

I still have a few OS 9 applications I use regularly and a slide scanner whose software only runs with 10.4. I'm still using my G5 as my main machine because I can't afford new hardware so I guess I'll just stick with it. I am using Quicken 2006 and it does what I need it to do.

nennew
Jun 17, 2011, 10:44 AM
Quicken 2007 for Mac works quite well. I've got ~15 years worth of Quicken data, all on the Mac, and I've upgraded to every viable version that Intuit has put forth. I say "viable" because I refused to downgrade my capabilities by using that POS they call Essentials (which it's not!). So, no, Quicken is not a farce on the Mac, but you need a decent version.

C'mon, Intuit, step up and create an Intel-based, fully functional version of Quicken for Mac 2012! Enough pu55y-footing around, bite the bullet, serve your Mac customers properly, and port the code!

I agree with the guy above. Intuit needs to build a full feature Quicken for the Mac. It has been five years since they updated it. I wonder if there is a good mac substitute for Turbo Tax? Send Intuit a strong message by dumping them completely.

doctor-don
Jun 17, 2011, 10:45 AM
If they're not willing to update their app (with all features) for Rosetta-free Lion then they definitely don't deserve their users' money.

We are referring to people who already own Quicken and don't want to have to buy a new version to satisfy the requirements of Lion.

I have the same problem with AppleWorks since the database won't import into one of the Apple products. And what is available won't use my data. I would have to enter everything again. What a waste of time!

doctor-don
Jun 17, 2011, 10:46 AM
I think there is a huge opportunity for a smart developer to take the market for the entire Mac platform. Quicklen is so bad that it should be easy to crush.

What the new app though needs is
1. the converter to seeminglessly and reliably transfer legacy quicken files to the new format.
2. Simple, high usability data entry
3. portfolio tracking with automated EOD daily quote updates and performance tracking that works (as opposed to Quicken's which does not)

The rest is gravy. IMOO

But feel free to add/edit

seamlessly?

NAG
Jun 17, 2011, 11:10 AM
I have the same problem with AppleWorks since the database won't import into one of the Apple products. And what is available won't use my data. I would have to enter everything again. What a waste of time!

Eh? (http://www.filemaker.com/products/bento/appleworks.html)

blue22
Jun 17, 2011, 11:34 AM
... And this is why Apple can't keep transitional technologies around. Developers are lazy. You can deprecate APIs all you want, no one will move away if you keep patching them, Q&Aing them and making sure they work.

Bingo!

I know it's tough to move on, but it's not like Quicken for the Mac was the best software for it's purpose, so this depreciation in OSX 10.7 is probably for the best, warts and all, and maybe, just maybe, this will force Intuit to put out a better product for the Mac platform sooner rather than later. Or at least this transition will inspire some developers to create their own software that successfully addresses a majority of the concerns/bugs/limitations of the current Quicken alternatives presently available.

*fingers crossed*

ten-oak-druid
Jun 17, 2011, 11:40 AM
These software companies new Rosetta wouldn't last forever. They should have been developing new versions in preparation.

Thunderhawks
Jun 17, 2011, 11:46 AM
I still have a few OS 9 applications I use regularly and a slide scanner whose software only runs with 10.4. I'm still using my G5 as my main machine because I can't afford new hardware so I guess I'll just stick with it. I am using Quicken 2006 and it does what I need it to do.

Did you try VUESCAN for your scanner?
Runs almost anything and if not e-mail Ed Hamrick and you get a fast response about what he can do.
You may help others.

MackyMoto
Jun 17, 2011, 11:48 AM
Intuit has totally ignored their Mac faithful for a decade or more. Windows users always got new versions of Quicken first and the Windows versions always had more features. I don't see Intuit changing course now. I mean really? Intuit has said for nearly 5 years that they will have a Mac upgrade soon. Then they came out with Quicken Essentials (QE)... please, what a joke. And since then they have admitted that QE is lacking features, but don't worry we're working on upgrading it. WHEN? Intuit, do you have like 1 programmer working part-time on the project?

Lion is now just around the corner and it will not include Rosetta, therefore Quicken 2007 will not run. So what is Intuit's solution? To patch Q2007!! What's the deal? Are you guys on the verge of bankruptcy and just can't afford programmers or is it that you never have cared about your loyal Mac user base and never will? Seems to me you only do the bare minimum to keep us all hanging on for that distant point in the future when (if you have some spare time to work on it) you release a legitimate Mac upgrade.

Financial software is not an easy thing to change, it's a time consuming hassle. That's why I (and apparently lots of others) have hung on so long - waiting, and waiting.

When Lion comes out I'm moving over to iBank4 and I won't be looking back.

Intuit, if you REALLY care about the Mac market, you better get your act together, NOW!

xraydoc
Jun 17, 2011, 11:56 AM
Intuit, if you REALLY care about the Mac market, you better get your act together, NOW!

They don't.

Swift
Jun 17, 2011, 12:09 PM
The bank web sites began to be competent. You can pay bills from the bank's site, and used a tool like mint.com to keep track of all your accounts and budgeting. I used to use Quicken to balance my check book. Ho-hum.

Plutonius
Jun 17, 2011, 12:13 PM
So if Apple can build in Rosetta to a single application why not just leave it system wide?

Seems like it's creating issues for absolutely no real benefit.

Read the story again. Intuit is trying to modify their code using help (i.e. consultation) from Apple. Intuit is also unsure if their code changes will work in the end.

I agree with many posters. Intuit should just re-write / compile the code for the Intel processor instead of trying this bandaid approach.

mac9000
Jun 17, 2011, 12:15 PM
Hack Rosetta onto Lion? CHALLENGE ACCEPTED :cool:
Ok not really, I'm staying at 10.5.8 Leopard.

Fraaaa
Jun 17, 2011, 12:24 PM
What is wrong with you people? This may in fact be the only option Intuit has that makes any kind of business sense. It's called legacy software, and it's expensive to maintain. They're not going to make any new money off this product, and the conversion costs could very well be insane.

They have a path going forward with a new code base. It may not be going well enough for you, but it's nice they're coming up with a solution for the old software at all.

I'm sorry but whatever businness supports legacy software are just developing their own future dead software.

neuromajor
Jun 17, 2011, 12:24 PM
At least there is discussion of options. Porting the Windows version over is probably a better choice - at least the feature set will be the same...

blue22
Jun 17, 2011, 12:27 PM
Personally, I'm still on the fence on which of the following Mac-based "Quicken killers" to use, though I'm currently leaning between choosing iBank4 or MoneyWell to give a good go with soon.

I haven't found a solid comprehensive list online yet addressing the issue so I wanted to ask MacRumors folks what they think are the main pros & cons for each of the following software listed below?

SIDE NOTE: I saw that a few of you have already posted some pros/cons of a few Quicken alternatives and I'd like to take that a set further and get some more feedback on using those finance applications; and hopefully as a result of all of this will help all of us to each individually determine what's the best software to use (currently) for each of our individual personal finance needs. And ideally you have first-hand experience using the particular software you're commenting on to make your shared /insights.

So, here's the current list I'm looking to get the Pros vs. Cons feedback on (in alphabetical order) but feel free to add any other notable finance software that has been overlooked:


- iBank4 (specifically this version) (http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/)
- Liquid Ledger (http://www.liquidledger.com/)
- MoneyDance (http://moneydance.com/)
- MoneyWell (http://nothirst.com/moneywell/)
- SEE Finance (http://www.scimonocesoftware.com/seefinance/)
- YNAB (http://www.youneedabudget.com/)

Try to keep the following in mind when sharing your assessment:

1) How user friendly is the GUI?
2) How reliable is the reconcile feature of the application?
3) How well does it import .QIF's, and importing data in general?
4) How flexible are the tools? (i.e. does it offer good features such as split transfers, investment tracking, multiple accounts management, check printing, etc...)
5) Does it have a mobile app version? How well does it work overall?
6) How robust is the reporting?
7) How good is it's customer support?
8) Overall quality using the software? Main Pro vs. Con?


Even if you only just have personal experience with one or two of the software listed above (or one that's been overlooked) the info/insight you share would be invaluable to everyone as a worthwhile alternative to using Quicken for the Mac. Many thanks in advance! :apple:

ten-oak-druid
Jun 17, 2011, 01:02 PM
Intuit had no intuition that Rosetta was on its way out?

Time for a name change.

ULFoaf
Jun 17, 2011, 01:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I was able to import 19 years of Quicken data into iBank. It went well. It was from Quicken for Windows 2008. So far, so good. The iBank app for iPhone is excellent for syncing on the go transactions, but no scheduled transactions. Still good.

hayesk
Jun 17, 2011, 01:08 PM
What is wrong with you people? This may in fact be the only option Intuit has that makes any kind of business sense. It's called legacy software, and it's expensive to maintain. They're not going to make any new money off this product, and the conversion costs could very well be insane.

They have a path going forward with a new code base. It may not be going well enough for you, but it's nice they're coming up with a solution for the old software at all.

Oh please. They have the most incompetent software architects on the planet. If Intuit had a shred of competency, they'd have a Mac version that used the same file format as the Windows version, used the same communications protocol for online banking, have feature parity, and could easily have updated it over the years. That would have made good business sense and would have been more profitable for them in the long run.

But instead, Quicken Essentials is basically saying "we %@ed up, so we're starting from scratch without any plan." Here's a plan for you, Intuit:
1. Write a Mac application that can read all of the data out of the Windows Quicken file.
2. Write down all of the features in Quicken for Windows.
3. Implement the all of the features from step 2 into the app you wrote in step 1.

They should have done this years ago. There are a lot of smart programmers at Intuit - it's too bad their bosses are completely incompetent.

chaosconan
Jun 17, 2011, 01:22 PM
Is apple going to provide a tool or utility that will tell you what software you have that wont work with OS Lion?
Before I upgrade I want to know which software is running under Rosette so that I can decide whether Its worth upgrading or not.

Stridder44
Jun 17, 2011, 01:23 PM
Weird. Sounds like it would be easier just to start over and build the damn thing from the ground up.

Yeah seriously. Why half-ass it? Just rebuild it entirely in Cocoa and 64-bit (even if 64-bit is useless for an application like this, no reason not to). Do things right the first time.

killerbee79
Jun 17, 2011, 01:23 PM
I wish this pipe dream of Intuit's was possible. I've searched endlessly for a replacement for Quicken 2007 and haven't found one suitable.

iBank4 is a joke of a program. Importing is not very easy if you have many accounts and most of the time after import the balances don't reconcile right with what you had. iBank needs to learn how to do + and -

Quicken Essentials, well everyone knows that app is a joke

I refuse to use an online service like Mint.

SEE Finance is the most promising so far. Still evaluating that one.

I guess I will be forever stuck with Snow Leopard and my Quicken 2007. Congrats Apple. You have locked me into my current Mac for life. I couldn't buy another Mac after Lion is released if I wanted to. I need Quicken 2007:mad:

Thunderhawks
Jun 17, 2011, 01:33 PM
Is apple going to provide a tool or utility that will tell you what software you have that wont work with OS Lion?
Before I upgrade I want to know which software is running under Rosette so that I can decide whether Its worth upgrading or not.

Yes, the spinning beach ball:-)

hindmost
Jun 17, 2011, 01:38 PM
That's why they call this site 'MacRumors'. This is surely a low grade rumor. Looks like a functionary (big word for overpaid flunky) working for Intuit knows the free ride ends when LION gets released in a few weeks. What to do? Why, just spread a 'rumor' that Intuit is working on a solution to let the hopelessly outdated Quicken product work on LION.

I call BS on this! Apple doesn't even own Rosetta (it's under license to Apple for current OSX) and I doubt very much a special deal will be cut at this late date to somehow insert Rosetta and working codes into LION just to accommodate Quicken.

Hey folks, time to move on for Heaven's Sakes! Intuit has played the Mac Community for fools long enough. Man up!

Cougarcat
Jun 17, 2011, 01:39 PM
Is apple going to provide a tool or utility that will tell you what software you have that wont work with OS Lion?
Before I upgrade I want to know which software is running under Rosette so that I can decide whether Its worth upgrading or not.

Any software released 2006 and later should be intel-compatible. For your older apps, do Get Info on them. if it says "Kind: Application (PowerPC)," it won't run.

After you install Lion, incompatible apps will have a circle with a slash overlaid on their icons.

Thunderhawks
Jun 17, 2011, 01:42 PM
I wish this pipe dream of Intuit's was possible. I've searched endlessly for a replacement for Quicken 2007 and haven't found one suitable.

SEE Finance is nice except it doesn't off no where near the reports Quicken does. With SEE Finance you can't drill down and do reports on certain categories and such. Just crap.

iBank4 is a joke of a program. Importing is not very easy if you have many accounts and most of the time after import the balances don't reconcile right with what you had. iBank needs to learn how to do + and -

Quicken Essentials, well everyone knows that app is a joke

I refuse to use an online service like Mint.

I guess I will be forever stuck with Snow Leopard and my Quicken 2007. Congrats Apple. You have locked me into my current Mac for life. I couldn't buy another Mac after Lion is released if I wanted to. I need Quicken 2007:mad:

Yes, tried SEE Finance some more. Reports definitely weak and not configurable via preferences.

Same for entering info. Always grabbing the mouse :-(

The check book style entry one row look Quicken has is best.
So, is the full view of categories.

Many MAc Users have older hardware around.

I just put all old stuff onto a PPC model .

So 2007 will be it for now and since I am not doing this 24/7 I'll wait until somebody comes up with a useable app.

IMO Intuit management knows all the hate showing by Mac users in this thread. There is just nobody there who wants to change things or worse cares:-(.

fabian9
Jun 17, 2011, 01:46 PM
These people need to go back to first principals - it's a money management software for crying out loud. It's got a user interface and a set of features, surely it can't be that much different from writing any other app that serves a specific purpose!

hindmost
Jun 17, 2011, 01:47 PM
I wish this pipe dream of Intuit's was possible. I've searched endlessly for a replacement for Quicken 2007 and haven't found one suitable.

iBank4 is a joke of a program. Importing is not very easy if you have many accounts and most of the time after import the balances don't reconcile right with what you had. iBank needs to learn how to do + and -

Quicken Essentials, well everyone knows that app is a joke

I refuse to use an online service like Mint.

SEE Finance is the most promising so far. Still evaluating that one.

I guess I will be forever stuck with Snow Leopard and my Quicken 2007. Congrats Apple. You have locked me into my current Mac for life. I couldn't buy another Mac after Lion is released if I wanted to. I need Quicken 2007:mad:

It's NOT Apple's fault. You should be contacting Intuit and crying to them. Lots of Luck on that though. They've had 5 years notice that PPC coded apps were not going to workable forever. They did nothing. Well....they did put out the flawed 'Quicken Essentials for Mac'. Oh, and they started this bogus rumor that they are working on Rosetta being usable in LION. Ha!

kingtj
Jun 17, 2011, 02:02 PM
I moved from Quicken 2007 for Mac to iBank as well, a couple years ago or so.

I got tired of Intuit dropping the ball on native Mac support.

To be honest, iBank wasn't that great of a product at first, but they've come a long way with it, to where I can solidly recommend it now -- at least for basic tracking of checking/savings accounts and credit cards.

In earlier versions, it would seem to "lose track" of the occasional entry, so despite it being visible on your screen, it wasn't subtracting the dollar value from your total balance. To correct things, I had to delete the offending entry and re-enter it again. It was just enough of an issue to be annoying, but was easily fixable when it happened. It still made me lose a lot of faith in the stability of the code, though. But that hasn't happened to me anymore in recent releases, nor do I see the sluggishness it used to have adding new entries.


iBank worked great reading in our data - not 10 years worth, but at least you can download the trial and give it a try: http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/

TransSharehold
Jun 17, 2011, 02:08 PM
The Bash code from Doug Harris at the end of this web page is very useful <http://superuser.com/questions/183463/inventory-of-apps-which-require-rosetta>.

I also strongly suspect Apple have the rights to do anything they want with Rosetta in perpetuity. So that would include ignoring it or doing specials, as this rumor thread discusses.

kingtj
Jun 17, 2011, 02:13 PM
The only reasonable TurboTax alternative I know of for OS X is H&R Block TaxCut. They make home and business editions just like TurboTax has, and I know a few people who swear it gives them bigger refunds than TurboTax does.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0047UKEJQ/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0047UEXP2&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17HVPACCB9N3SF58869Y


I agree with the guy above. Intuit needs to build a full feature Quicken for the Mac. It has been five years since they updated it. I wonder if there is a good mac substitute for Turbo Tax? Send Intuit a strong message by dumping them completely.

fidelityrevo
Jun 17, 2011, 02:15 PM
For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.

Other essential applications like Eudora won't work without Rosetta. The OSE of Eudora simply isn't developed enough. It is infuriating Apple won't support Rosetta. This simply isn't acceptable! There is no other e-mail program any where as good as Eudora. Quicken 2007, Eudora, there are other programs that need it. The legacy value of Rosetta is immense. I have other applications that need Rosetta that have data in them. Come on Apple, don't be EVIL.

seek3r
Jun 17, 2011, 02:29 PM
Crossover or another wine program should be able to do it fine no 3D graphics etc.

+1 (though I'll quibble that some 3D graphics run just fine in WINE/CX)

Another option would be a full blown Virtual Machine with Snow Leopard (though you either need to be using SL Server in the VM or break the EULA of Client + some minor hackery for that option)

chaosconan
Jun 17, 2011, 02:33 PM
Any software released 2006 and later should be intel-compatible. For your older apps, do Get Info on them. if it says "Kind: Application (PowerPC)," it won't run.

After you install Lion, incompatible apps will have a circle with a slash overlaid on their icons.

Can I use Activity Monitor and check the column KIND to determine whether its running under PPC or INTEL?

Hberg
Jun 17, 2011, 02:47 PM
Macrumors provides a guide on Rosetta, and it provides you way to identify which programs were only written for PowerPC and will use Rosetta when run on an Intel Mac.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Rosetta

"To tell what processor a particular application was built for, simply choose the application in Finder and choose Get-Info from the File Menu.

290024
Image:Itunesuniversal.png


Universal means it was written for both PowerPC and Intel.
PowerPC means it was only written for PowerPC and will use Rosetta when run on an Intel Mac.
Intel means it was only written for Intel and will only run on an Intel Mac.
"

SamuraiArtGuy
Jun 17, 2011, 02:51 PM
I wonder if the folks at Quicken are aware of the (to say the least) dissatisfaction of Mac users for their product. If so, why not make an explicit public declaration that they are committed to make QME a solid personal finance program and that their goal is to create functionality parity with its other Quicken products? I sense no guiding principle to their Quicken product plans...

...I can only assume that misery loves company.

Apparently not, since is seems Intuit would rather reach back nearly 5 years into the past to kludge an aging app back to life than go to the more sensible effort of porting one of the more fully featured and mature Windows Quicken versions to Mac OS X.

So their regard for Mac users and the Mac market can't be very high. Or they're THAT clueless. I wonder what windows users think of Quicken. Mind you the upsell product, QuickBooks is reasonably well regarded on the Windows side. And there's even a QuickBooks 2011 for Mac, with reasonably close feature parity with Windows Quickbooks Pro 2011.

I don't know quite why Quicken for the Mac has been so dismissed. But even on the windows side, it's NOT a flagship product for Intuit.

But it surely has.

chaosconan
Jun 17, 2011, 02:55 PM
Macrumors provides a guide on Rosetta, and it provides you way to identify which programs were only written for PowerPC and will use Rosetta when run on an Intel Mac.

http://guides.macrumors.com/Rosetta

"To tell what processor a particular application was built for, simply choose the application in Finder and choose Get-Info from the File Menu.

290024
Image:Itunesuniversal.png


Universal means it was written for both PowerPC and Intel.
PowerPC means it was only written for PowerPC and will use Rosetta when run on an Intel Mac.
Intel means it was only written for Intel and will only run on an Intel Mac.
"

UH! Thats a time consuming process!!!

I have over 100+ applications. Isn't there a faster way to tell? Can I do something from the command line to list all binaries that are PPC?

chaosconan
Jun 17, 2011, 03:01 PM
My MacTheRipper is PowerPC. This sucks. I'll lose this upgrading to Lion.
I use this every week ripping dvd's. :mad:

Cougarcat
Jun 17, 2011, 03:05 PM
Can I use Activity Monitor and check the column KIND to determine whether its running under PPC or INTEL?

Yes. It will say PowerPC under "Kind."

ALso, as someone else suggested, go to the Applications list in System Profiler and sort by Kind.


My MacTheRipper is PowerPC. This sucks. I'll lose this upgrading to Lion.
I use this every week ripping netflix dvd's. :mad:

Use Handbrake. MacTheRipper hasn't been updated since 2005.

Also, why on earth would you admit to pirating Netflix DVDs??

chaosconan
Jun 17, 2011, 03:11 PM
Yes. It will say PowerPC under "Kind."

ALso, as someone else suggested, go to the Applications list in System Profiler and sort by Kind.




Use Handbrake. MacTheRipper hasn't been updated since 2005.

I use handbrake to convert to my ipod touch but it does not do any dvd cloning. I could be wrong. I didn't see any option that makes a clone. I guess I'll have to open my wallet and buy a dvd ripping software. :mad:

chaosconan
Jun 17, 2011, 03:21 PM
[QUOTE=Cougarcat;12777974]Yes. It will say PowerPC under "Kind."

ALso, as someone else suggested, go to the Applications list in System Profiler and sort by Kind.


This worked. I'm going to lose 38 applications in the upgrade.
I'll be losing
Warcraft 3,
Starcraft Original
Starcraft BloodWar
SimCity 4
MacDraft :mad:
Hotspot Shield
and many others.

I love MacDraft. I can't lose this one. I use it all the time.

chaosconan
Jun 17, 2011, 03:23 PM
Yes. It will say PowerPC under "Kind."

ALso, as someone else suggested, go to the Applications list in System Profiler and sort by Kind.




Use Handbrake. MacTheRipper hasn't been updated since 2005.

Also, why on earth would you admit to pirating Netflix DVDs??

I'm just joking ;) I really am not ripping Netflix. I don't even have a netflix account.

ActionableMango
Jun 17, 2011, 03:24 PM
For the love of god, just make Rosetta an optional download like it is now and all our lives easier.

YES PLEASE.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Apple is predicted to be pulling the PowerPC frameworks too. Without those, Rosetta won't run.

Then make that a downloadable extension as well.

PowerPC was around a long time and has a big legacy. There are four reasons why many of us would like it:

(1) Games. That's right, games existing on Mac before Steam. And they are mostly PowerPC. And they mostly have no Intel substitute. Sure we can replace Diablo II when III comes out, but what about the classis like Warcraft or AoE?

(2) Cost. Many of us use a lot of Adobe software. In particular I use Photoshop. It's extremely expensive to replace all that.

(3) Unique titles with no replacement. Many titles can't be replaced even if we're willing to pay for them. Quicken is an example of that. Also MactheRipper as someone else mentioned.

(4) It's comparatively ridiculous. I can run DOS programs, Windows programs, Linux programs, Commodore 64 programs, Arcade ROMs, and more all on OS X using various emulators, but I won't be able to run OS X programs that are a few years old on OS X???

I realize a lot of you don't give a rip about Rosetta, and that's fine. I'm not asking to bloat Lion with it, I'm asking to make it an optional download.

benthewraith
Jun 17, 2011, 03:26 PM
[QUOTE=Cougarcat;12777974]Yes. It will say PowerPC under "Kind."

ALso, as someone else suggested, go to the Applications list in System Profiler and sort by Kind.


This worked. I'm going to lose 38 applications in the upgrade.
I'll be losing
Warcraft 3,
Starcraft Original
Starcraft BloodWar
SimCity 4
MacDraft :mad:
Hotspot Shield
and many others.

I love MacDraft. I can't lose this one. I use it all the time.

Looks like I'll be losing some Adobe Illustrator features.

Hberg
Jun 17, 2011, 03:30 PM
UH! Thats a time consuming process!!!

I have over 100+ applications. Isn't there a faster way to tell? Can I do something from the command line to list all binaries that are PPC?

Sorry, Dude. Just trying to provide some assistance. Personally, I am not going to check the Apple Programs, since those should be fine with Lion. I am just checking the non-Apple programs.

The link I provided has much more detail on the process and it even provides an example of the lipo command line tool to inspect an executable.

If that doesn't meet your needs, maybe you can research a better way to accomplish your objective.

masterhiggins
Jun 17, 2011, 04:16 PM
I love it when Apple tells US what's good and bad.

PatchyFog
Jun 17, 2011, 04:23 PM
I, too, am an old fart that his been a Mac Developer since 84 and even ran my own Mac software company. I've got 20 years of Quicken data (using 2006 currently), and almost as many years of Eudora mail.

Every 6 months or so, I check out Infinity Data Systems MailForge as Eudora replacement. It ALMOST works, but I run into bugs. (I just checked and they released another update recently, so I'll take a look again.)

For now, I just won't upgrade OSX. My computers are here to serve me. I'm not going to waste my "free" time migrating data because legacy emulation is too boring for a bunch of 30 year old punk developers at Apple HQ. Eventually an obvious replacement will emerge and I'll jump.

Programs like Eudora, Emacs and Quicken 06 may be ugly and perhaps clunky and unloved by their parents, but they ARE feature complete (well, in the case of the first two anyway!)

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 17, 2011, 04:48 PM
Weird. Sounds like it would be easier just to start over and build the damn thing from the ground up.

I don't know why you think it 'sounds' that way. You probably believe KnightWRX's assertions in another thread that it's impossible to run Rosetta without a whole ton of crap involved. The simple truth is it's just an emulator engine and like using Cider to port PC games is 10x easier than building a new binary, embedding some emulator code to make a PPC binary work is a lot easier than starting from scratch.

KnightWRX
Jun 17, 2011, 04:52 PM
I don't know why you think it 'sounds' that way. You probably believe KnightWRX's assertions in another thread that it's impossible to run Rosetta without a whole ton of crap involved. The simple truth is it's just an emulator engine and like using Cider to port PC games is 10x easier than building a new binary, embedding some emulator code to make a PPC binary work is a lot easier than starting from scratch.

Why do you believe facts are crap ? Because they make sense of Apple's decision ? :rolleyes:

It's the plain truth. Rosetta, the binary, is just a small part of what makes PPC apps work. All librairies must still ship PPC code to work. This is what they stripped out in Lion since keeping a PPC build of the entire framework catalog, making sure it passes Q&A regressions and making sure not to introduce PPC bugs during patching is a big pain and a lot of work for Apple. Rosetta can't magically link a x86_64 or x86 librairie to a PPC binary.

Sucks that the crap involved makes the decision by Apple logical uh ? Hard to argue with facts and logic, much easier to write wall of text whines... ;)

If what I am saying is crap, counter it. Don't attack the messenger, attack the facts.

heisetax
Jun 17, 2011, 05:08 PM
iBank4 looks really good, it has a lot of helpful video tutorials (http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/tutorials.php) on their website as well, and most likely this is what I'll upgrade to as well. Just FYI: if you purchase the iBank4 license diretly from the Mac App store you won't be able to get the 30 day money-back guarantee that IGG Software offers when buying it from their online shop, so that's something to take into consideration before you spend any cash on this product.

Just do what you did before the app store. Talk straight with your software company, take their 30 day free trial & go from there. What part of that includes the app store? Why should Apple get a cut or know what software I have installed on my Mac?

blue22
Jun 17, 2011, 06:03 PM
iBank4 looks really good, it has a lot of helpful video tutorials (http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibank/tutorials.php) on their website as well, and most likely this is what I'll upgrade to as well. Just FYI: if you purchase the iBank4 license diretly from the Mac App store you won't be able to get the 30 day money-back guarantee that IGG Software offers when buying it from their online shop, so that's something to take into consideration before you spend any cash on this product.

Just do what you did before the app store. Talk straight with your software company, take their 30 day free trial & go from there. What part of that includes the app store? Why should Apple get a cut or know what software I have installed on my Mac?


Just to clarify, I was only trying to give a heads up to people as a friendly "FYI" that the 30-day money back guarantee is ONLY available if one buys iBank4 directly from the developer's website; otherwise, purchasing it from the Mac App store will forfeit this benefit as a buyer. Trust me, I'm all for supporting the software developer directly for their products through their own website whenever possible.

colourfastt
Jun 17, 2011, 06:04 PM
If software like this is essential to a user, here's the options:

Don't go Lion- your computer & software will continue to work as it does now. Rosetta will continue to run. Rosetta-dependent software will continue to function.
Create a small Snow Leopard partition, then boot into that when you need to run select PPC software in Rosetta.
Embrace one of the Windows emulators and upgrade to the Windows version.
Gripe, complain, vent, whine about this spilled milk but, as always, once it's spilled...


The first two options won't cost you anything in terms of dollars (the first one will save you $29). If there is some hope in the 4th one that Apple will "come around", a masses execution of #1 is the best chance at it (but I don't see that happening).

#2 appears to be an easy answer at no $ cost that also supports desires to upgrade OS X to the latest & greatest.

#3 is the solution I use now, which does involve a fair amount of cost but also facilitates the ability to use any other software for the Windows platform (of which there are countless titles NOT available for ANY version of the Mac OS- classic, PPC or Intel. If you sometimes wish you could run more than just an updated version of Quicken, spread the cost of the emulator + Windows around to all of the Windows stuff you want to be able to run and it makes the cost seem increasingly small.

#4 seems to be the one many are embracing. It accomplishes nothing.

This is a great example of why the Mac platform is not a serious business/enterprise solution. If I need to replace a computer that runs Lion and my business still uses a legacy application then there's a problem. If I run a Windows-based business and I have to replace a computer and my business runs a legacy application from, say, 1999, no problem.

Sad state of affairs.

blue22
Jun 17, 2011, 06:08 PM
... ALso, as someone else suggested, go to the Applications list in System Profiler and sort by Kind.

This worked. I'm going to lose 38 applications in the upgrade.
I'll be losing
Warcraft 3,
Starcraft Original
Starcraft BloodWar
SimCity 4
MacDraft :mad:
Hotspot Shield
and many others.

...

SimCity 4 too?! NOOOOOOO!!! :( What about SimCity 4: Rush Hour?!

dakwar
Jun 17, 2011, 07:17 PM
Soo...I have 10 years of quicken data. Assuming Quicken 07 won't work on Lion, is there any mac program that will read my quicken data?

Please oh please, don't tell me I have to run Windows on my mac.

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this before (haven't read all the posts in this tread) but SEE Finance is a good one and will read quicken 07 data.

Edit: Yep, I see a lot of people have mentioned SF.

killerbee79
Jun 17, 2011, 08:04 PM
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this before (haven't read all the posts in this tread) but SEE Finance is a good one and will read quicken 07 data.

Edit: Yep, I see a lot of people have mentioned SF.

Tried SEE Finance. The reports you can generate are crap. I can't even generate a basic high level ROI report on my brokerage account. Just a list of all stocks traded with the gain or loss. The level of customizing and creating reports is no where near what Quicken 2007 offers.

To those that don't care about reports and just want to record transactions it just peachy. If you want to use this like personal finance software should be used for, you know, to plan and manage your money...well it is pure junk.

jasbart
Jun 17, 2011, 08:11 PM
For a number of years I've been running various versions of Quicken H&B on a Macbook/Parallels. I have no quarrel with the program, but I'd love to be able to cut the cord on one of the few Windows programs I still run if I can find a suitable replacement for the Mac side. Anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks, Jim

Rodimus Prime
Jun 17, 2011, 08:17 PM
SimCity 4 too?! NOOOOOOO!!! :( What about SimCity 4: Rush Hour?!

safe to say it is dead as well since it was built on top of SimCity4.

Cougarcat
Jun 17, 2011, 08:55 PM
safe to say it is dead as well since it was built on top of SimCity4.

No, there is a universal patch available.
(http://macgamefiles.com/item/18397/SimCity-4-Rush-Hour-Universal-Binary/)
That said, it's still an "open beta" patch and the reviews there aren't too good.

Also, someone mentioned that they'd loose Warcraft III. This is incorrect. I'm not sure why it appears as "PowerPC" in the System Profiler list, but it was definitely made universal and you can see this if you do a get info on the app.

doctor-don
Jun 17, 2011, 08:59 PM
We are referring to people who already own Quicken and don't want to have to buy a new version to satisfy the requirements of Lion.

I have the same problem with AppleWorks since the database won't import into one of the Apple products. And what is available won't use my data. I would have to enter everything again. What a waste of time!

Eh? (http://www.filemaker.com/products/bento/appleworks.html)

Even though your AppleWorks database forms will not import into Bento, the Bento form tool makes it fast and easy to build the forms you need, ...

Maybe I'll have to try Bento.

moderately
Jun 17, 2011, 10:06 PM
UH! Thats a time consuming process!!!

I have over 100+ applications. Isn't there a faster way to tell? Can I do something from the command line to list all binaries that are PPC?

This. Simple.


ALso, as someone else suggested, go to the Applications list in System Profiler and sort by Kind.

Green Butterfly
Jun 17, 2011, 11:05 PM
Back in the mid 1990s, there was a personal finance app that was better than Quicken. It was called Managing Your Money. I used MYM until it would no longer run on a current Mac system. At that time, there was no other choice but to switch to Quicken.

MYM cost around $60. Quicken came into the market priced around $35 and was also bundled with some new Macs. MYM couldn't compete on price and faded away.

Chris Blount
Jun 17, 2011, 11:09 PM
I've been using Quicken Essentials since it's come out and so far, I'm happy with it. Yeah, it doesn't have all the extra features some of y'all need, and I can understand your frustration with that, but for someone simple like me, it gets the job done.

Since it's come out, they have added more features to it. They're also pretty quick with updating any bugs. I think since it's been out, I've had to download about maybe 10 different updates.

Maybe later they might add some of those features, but for now, I'm a satisfied customer.

I did use Quicken 2006 for a few years and to me, it was clunkier and older feeling.

Ya know, you are right. I just fired up my copy of Quicken Essential that I purchased when it first came out and downloaded all the updates (there have been quite a few). They even added password protection for the data file which was my biggest beef.

Just for fun I imported my 12 years of data from Quicken 2007 and everything came over perfectly. Went much better than the first time I did this last year.

I only do simple tracking of checking and savings accounts so this might actually work for now. I will run both versions concurrently and see where this goes.

It seems Intuit has been updating Essentials fairly well over the past year.

davidg4781
Jun 17, 2011, 11:49 PM
Ya know, you are right. I just fired up my copy of Quicken Essential that I purchased when it first came out and downloaded all the updates (there have been quite a few). They even added password protection for the data file which was my biggest beef.

Just for fun I imported my 12 years of data from Quicken 2007 and everything came over perfectly. Went much better than the first time I did this last year.

I only do simple tracking of checking and savings accounts so this might actually work for now. I will run both versions concurrently and see where this goes.

It seems Intuit has been updating Essentials fairly well over the past year.

They've also added some features that were missing from the original version that people were asking about. I think hopefully it'll get up to where it needs to be, but it'll take time. Unfortunately, even though Quicken's been on Mac's for years, this is like a brand new piece of software that they're putting together from scratch.

moore2772
Jun 18, 2011, 01:14 AM
Hello, Apple? Anyone listening? There are hundreds of apps that have not been and never will be ported from Intel. There are many others that have been- for a price (financial software in particular). I'd love to migrate to Lion, but won't unless my crucial (read programs with hundreds of files associated with them) apps will run without the need to dual boot. Surely, with all of Apple's great software engineers out there, someone can come up with a 10.7 version of Rosetta. In the meantime, I will have no choice than to stay with SL, and Apple will lose my $30, and some of my goodwill...

moore2772
Jun 18, 2011, 01:26 AM
I only do simple tracking of checking and savings accounts so this might actually work for now. I will run both versions concurrently and see where this goes.

It seems Intuit has been updating Essentials fairly well over the past year.[/QUOTE]

The main problem with Quicken Essentials, iBank, and the others is that they don't give the user many options and configurations as far as reports. I run 3 small businesses that required detailed reports. Quicken 5 (yes 5) still works on my 1 year old iMac and I can produce any kind of report, even comparison reports, filtered any which-a-way. Decent, full-featured reports are also very handy for doing one's taxes. Earlier versions of Quicken, with their faults, at least do reports and graphs exceedingly well. Apple needs to let users who are satisfied with those versions have the option to continue using them until there is some hardware reason why they won't. I don't like being pushed into "the future" because Steve seems to think backward compatibility is not "progress." Macs have always been very good at that, only phasing older systems out when new chips made them obsolete. But even then, their brilliant engineers would figure out a way to let us use those apps for years longer- Classic, Rosetta. It's too soon to orphan all PPC apps IMHO.

davidg4781
Jun 18, 2011, 01:36 AM
I run 3 small businesses that required detailed reports.

Just curious, and not to sound like a jerk, but why not find a piece of software designed for small businesses instead of one geared towards personal finance? If it works for you, that's great, and again, I don't want to come off like a jerk.

Is it just because Quicken is working fine for you or there's a lack of small businesses software for Mac? If the latter's the case, it would seem this to be a huge opportunity for some software companies to jump on.

fedup flyer
Jun 18, 2011, 05:11 AM
There are a lot of smart programmers at Intuit - it's too bad their bosses are completely incompetent.

I disagree with the smart programmers part.
I was in the "inner circle" program from Quicken Essentials. One of the developers said he could not understand why we needed check printing capabilities (and a few other needed functions). Needless to say, he was verbally thrashed for that idiotic comment.
Intuit is now reaping the rewards of off-shoring their programmers and these not so fine folks are delivering crap in return.

MrNomNoms
Jun 18, 2011, 06:51 AM
Where I live 95-99% of businesses us MYOB - Intuit were trying to work out why that was the case; the article of Intuit being too lazy to create a version of Quicken that is native for Mac OS X and 100% equal to the Windows counterpart really shows that they don't give a crap about their product. Sorry, if a MYOB can provide first class support for Mac users then I damn well expect Intuit to either do the same or give Mac users a refund for their purchased copy.

themadrhino
Jun 18, 2011, 08:45 AM
Since I want to go to Lion I have tested iBank, SEE Finance, Moneydance, Quicken Essentials, and Money.

Being a Quicken user on the Mac since 1995 I am very disappointed that Quicken doesn't value my business. I am on Quicken 2005 currently.

So I downloaded the personal finance software above and only paid for Quicken Essentials (I just got my refund back - it was very easy with no hassles). Not having investment tracking in Quicken Essentials is like gutting some of the most valuable capabilities. I can go to my financial websites to find out status and don't need Quicken Essentials for that.

Of all the programs the one that most emulates Quicken 2005 for my investments and tracking things was Moneydance.

I seriously tried to make iBank 4 work but I couldn't get the portfolio view for my 401K easily and while I believe there is a way, the reason I use a Mac is for simplicity. The reason I tried to make iBank 4 work it seems to have the highest market share of non-Quicken for Mac personal software and don't want to be doing this again in switching software for a while.

Money just seemed to lack some basic capabilities I used in Quicken 2005.

Based on another post I checked out SEE Finance and while I thought it was pretty good, Moneydance suited my needs better (basic tracking of checking, credit cards and investments).

With Moneydance the only issue I encountered was that my checking was off by$116 on the conversion but I am assuming operator error. All my credit cards, savings accounts and investments transferred correctly.

So at the end of the day for $49 I am going to go with Moneydance not because I want to but because Quicken has decided it didn't want my business.

Each program I looked at may be best for someone, so I recommend that you download and test them yourself (not from App Store since you have to buy but from the respective websites since it is a free download) and then decide.

The link below was also helpful but I wasn't sure if it was an infomercial so I checked out the products myself.

http://personal-finance-software-review.toptenreviews.com/mac-personal-finance-software/

I knew that I had to eventually leave Quicken since they weren't going to support me and it reminds me of the frustration I felt when I gave up Hypercard for tracking my contacts - something I eventually forgot about until now thinking about how I am going to have to learn a new program.

blue22
Jun 18, 2011, 03:34 PM
Has anyone used GnuCash (http://www.gnucash.org/)? How does it compare to iBank or Moneydance?

I know it's freeware, but is the support community around it any good for long term viability and updates?

Thunderhawks
Jun 18, 2011, 03:41 PM
Okay, so right now it seems that everything is working, Rosetta and all.

So, why should we upgrade to LION?

Do we need all these new features? Will we really be more productive?

It's not the first time I skipped an OS until all the pitfalls are iron't out.

Maybe within that ironing, somebody other than Apple releases an emulator for PPC.

Done in the gaming world, so why not for business?

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 18, 2011, 04:08 PM
Why do you believe facts are crap ? Because they make sense of Apple's decision ? :rolleyes:

It's the plain truth. Rosetta, the binary, is just a small part of what makes PPC apps work. All librairies must still ship PPC code to work.


You've got a strange idea of the 'plain truth'. :rolleyes:

PPC apps don't care if they're using older libraries. Set Rosetta up to use an older depreciated set of libraries and they'll run just fine internally. That is exactly what Quicken is going to do, include an older set within the program compile itself. The only parts it needs to interface within Lion are the ones that render it to the user (graphics, input, etc.) Thus it's far simpler for them to do that than rewrite Quicken to Intel code.


This is what they stripped out in Lion since keeping a PPC build of the entire framework catalog, making sure it passes Q&A regressions and making sure not to introduce PPC bugs during patching is a big pain and a lot of work for Apple. Rosetta can't magically link a x86_64 or x86 librairie to a PPC binary.


The PPC app doesn't want an x86 library dude! It wants a PPC one! But for MOST of the libraries, changes to the latest library for newer features in Lion are completely arbitrary to a PPC app. Those apps aren't designed for Lion features. They'll run with older libraries just fine. The only thing Rosetta has to be re-tuned to do is interface with the primary input/output libraries in Lion to bring it to the screen and work with the keyboard/mouse/sound ,etc. Most of the other libraries can be old as sin and still work with PPC code.

The practical thing to do for Rosetta in Lion would be to move the Snow Leopard libraries into their own depreciated library folder and then modify Rosetta to only use the parts it needs, not all the libraries. It doesn't need any newer ones because Lion has NO PPC SUPPORT so no PPC program is going to use anything newer (e.g. say the Dictionary library gets cool new features to its library...so what? And older program isn't going to use them anyway so loading the old library will do just fine. Even if the definitions are in the library itself, it's still better to run the old one than not at all from a user perspective in most cases).


Sucks that the crap involved makes the decision by Apple logical uh ? Hard to argue with facts and logic, much easier to write wall of text whines... ;)


You look pretty ridiculous writing that about yourself. :p


If what I am saying is crap, counter it. Don't attack the messenger, attack the facts.

I can counter it all day long, but if you don't read it (or more likely comprehend it), it won't do any good because you'll just keep ranting on and on and on and on about how stupid everyone but you is.

The simple fact is that Rosetta could be modified from its current form to operate just like I'm describing and keep older software running. It would then behave like a depreciated XP virtual machine just like Microsoft is using for Windows7 to run older software with the sole exception that it's also translating PPC CPU instructions in real time (emulation). It would require some basic upkeep for connecting it to the graphics/sound/input/output parts of the current OS if something major is changed in how it interacts with it (like any other emulator or virtual machine), but it wouldn't need anywhere NEAR the entire library set of OSX to function since internally it would be running the depreciated set that already exists and isn't going to change (the same way my Amiga emulator loads Amiga libraries that haven't been updated in 15+ years). It's just not that hard to understand. Or is it?

That is essentially what Quicken is doing for their product in a one-off basis. They're going to load the PPC libraries internally and then make a few connections to OSX proper for input/output. It's the same basic thing that CIDER does for porting Windows games (minus the CPU emulation since they use the same processors). Apple has already done the lion's share (no pun intended) of the work. Just letting it die just little more than piss off a lot of users that still have software that will no longer function (from Mac The Ripper to Office 2004 to whatever games, etc. that worked fine under Rosetta). If that's not worth a little development time on Apple part, then Apple knows little about listening to their user-base (but then most of us already know that from past experience).

NERunner
Jun 18, 2011, 04:09 PM
Okay, so right now it seems that everything is working, Rosetta and all.

So, why should we upgrade to LION?

D

For me, I think the interesting point of this thread is the lack of support and apparent care Intuit directs toward their Quicken application(s) for Mac. For those of us who are looking for a fully functional, robust, and capable personal finance application from a relatively large company that specializes in financial software (Intuit), we are expressing our profound frustration and dismay by that company's lack of interest in the Mac market. Even if we don't upgrade, Intuit has shown, time and again it's lack of dedication to this product. Yes, there are other alternatives, but Quicken, some time and many versions back, sold a very good program. I suspect, many of us, defy reality and hope that one day they will wake up and realize the potential mac market and then dedicate the appropriate people to deliver a solid program.

davidg4781
Jun 18, 2011, 04:37 PM
Wirelessly posted (Palm Pre: Mozilla/5.0 (webOS/1.4.5; U; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.2 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/1.0 Safari/532.2 Pre/1.0)

Maybe the market's too small? I wonder what percentage of all pc users use some kind of personal financial software. Out of all the people I know, I'm the only one that does. Most just look at their bank account online. And, since you can pull it up on your smartphone, that helps even more.

Fraaaa
Jun 18, 2011, 07:44 PM
This is a great example of why the Mac platform is not a serious business/enterprise solution. If I need to replace a computer that runs Lion and my business still uses a legacy application then there's a problem. If I run a Windows-based business and I have to replace a computer and my business runs a legacy application from, say, 1999, no problem.

Sad state of affairs.

1. What about Vista (http://www.zdnetasia.com/gartner-app-testing-delaying-vista-rollouts-62012902.htm)?

2. Many bussiness have computer running XP which came out in 2001. Why people still arguing over this? We can SIMPLY - JUST - USE - (SNOW)LEOPARD.

3. When OS X was announced in 2001 had been stated VERY clearly that carbon was just a support for transition and that developer should be moving overtime on cocoa. Here we are 10 years after.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 18, 2011, 07:48 PM
What about Vista?

things that crashed and burned on Vista were from even farther back. We are talking pre windows 95 or it was using hooks from before that time. Both things should of been removed a long time after. Largest thing is if it runs x86 (32 bit code) it is going to work just fine. I can still run the original DOOM on my computer now days. Does not use any fancy hooks that would cause it to be blocked and it is x86 32bit code.

Good luck trying to run that on a Mac.

Fraaaa
Jun 18, 2011, 08:17 PM
things that crashed and burned on Vista were from even farther back. We are talking pre windows 95 or it was using hooks from before that time. Both things should of been removed a long time after. Largest thing is if it runs x86 (32 bit code) it is going to work just fine. I can still run the original DOOM on my computer now days. Does not use any fancy hooks that would cause it to be blocked and it is x86 32bit code.

Good luck trying to run that on a Mac.

I do understand that, but people should stop picking on individual argument and threat the thing as a whole.
He was arguing that Mac OS isn't serious for businness and that is why he stays on MS - here I brought an issue on MS that HAPPENED. I'm not talking on backward compatibility, but reliability.
And still why is acceptable to have a ten years old XP but is such a chore on stay on a reliable and good SL? Argue on this please. Argue on tha fact that everyone is making a big deal about this, but no one is having a realistic view that really is not a big deal of staying on SL or having two partitions or using parallel.
Let's argue on how developers - which really are the companies that gave them the job - haven't been moving onward even tho they had plenty of time. And I do understand that are some legacy app that just cannot make the jump but always there is a work around, or a better app - which many people pointed out for quicken - that can replace most of older, UNSUPPORTED, apps.
Let's argue how big deal is to not play Diablo II anymore... I have bought a SNES, that thing has 20 years still work. How is that a problem?

Apple had explained their strategy ten years ago with their API, they gave plenty of time, and now they are moving on.

KnightWRX
Jun 18, 2011, 09:08 PM
You've got a strange idea of the 'plain truth'. :rolleyes:

PPC apps don't care if they're using older libraries. Set Rosetta up to use an older depreciated set of libraries and they'll run just fine internally.

I'm stopping you right there. If you don't fix bugs in the "older" librairies, you might be shipping a system with code paths that can lead to privilege escalation bugs, denial of service bugs or other nasties. As long as Apple ships the librairies on the system, they have to update and maintain them. Otherwise, they run the risk of making OS X vulnerable. What you are suggesting is a very serious security flaw waiting to happen. You can't just ship "frozen" code unless it's TeX and you're called Donald Knuth.

So there's no going around it. Either you remove the offending builds, or you keep on working on them, Q&Aing them and basically support them.

Not to mention, again, that stripping said librairies reduces the size of the OS on disk and as a download, which is for now the only way to get the OS. It's a plus for the user (who's downloading and storing it on his disk) and it's a plus for Apple (who now can stop doing Q&A, bug fixes, and having to be careful not to break compatibility when doing so).

Keep on ranting and wall of texting... I doubt at this point there's very many people getting to the end of your posts.

AidenShaw
Jun 18, 2011, 10:58 PM
Apple had explained their strategy ten years ago with their API, they gave plenty of time, and now they are moving on.

Unfortunately, Apple are moving on and leaving many of their customers up a creek without a paddle.

What if the company that you bought your software from five years ago has gone under?

What if the latest version doesn't meet your needs, or if you have plugins or other mods that don't work with the current version.

What if you have a customized or custom app - should you budget an extra half million or so every few years to adapt to Apple's whims about supporting official APIs?


Windows - still supporting 16-bit applications from 1992 on x86 Windows 7, and on x64 Windows 7 via "Windows XP mode" virtual machines
Apple OSX - you want to run apps from 2007?

KnightWRX
Jun 18, 2011, 11:04 PM
Unfortunately, Apple are moving on and leaving many of their customers up a creek without a paddle.

What if the company that you bought your software from five years ago has gone under?

What if the latest version doesn't meet your needs, or if you have plugins or other mods that don't work with the current version.

What if you have a customized or custom app - should you budget an extra half million or so every few years to adapt to Apple's whims about supporting official APIs?

Ah, the perils of closed source software, being at the mercy of vendors. Richard Stallman not sounding that crazy now is he ? :rolleyes:

MorphingDragon
Jun 18, 2011, 11:07 PM
Unfortunately, Apple are moving on and leaving many of their customers up a creek without a paddle.

What if the company that you bought your software from five years ago has gone under?

What if the latest version doesn't meet your needs, or if you have plugins or other mods that don't work with the current version.

What if you have a customized or custom app - should you budget an extra half million or so every few years to adapt to Apple's whims about supporting official APIs?


Windows - still supporting 16-bit applications from 1992 on x86 Windows 7, and on x64 Windows 7 via "Windows XP mode" virtual machines
Apple OSX - you want to run apps from 2007?


That's the risks you take when you depend on another business for infrastructure. Any business is welcome to take RHEL, LibreOffice, Zimbra or Evolution and make it their own.

We had to change practice management software on a whim because Lexis Nexis bought out the company that made the software we were using and wanted us to use PCLaw, an inferior product. We now use Zenix (Zenox?, can never remember the spelling), an OSS based piece of software.

Also you're kidding yourself if you think that Windows x86 truly supports 16-bit software. A lot of applications (in my experience) relied on specific mappings in the DOS environment that were changed or removed in latter OS revisions. This breaks a large majority of 16-bit software.

Ah, the perils of closed source software, being at the mercy of vendors. Richard Stallman not sounding that crazy now is he ? :rolleyes:

Actually on a side note, a lot of the main free Linux distros have dropped PPC support after Sony removed Other OS. PPC just isn't worth the continued maintenance because the consumer user base is so insignificant. Enterprise PPC will still be around for a long time though. POWER7 really is something special in terms of cost/performance.

I bet you though, the hackintosh community will come up with a custom XNU kernel and find a way around this limitation.

Fraaaa
Jun 18, 2011, 11:22 PM
Unfortunately, Apple are moving on and leaving many of their customers up a creek without a paddle.

What if the company that you bought your software from five years ago has gone under?

What if the latest version doesn't meet your needs, or if you have plugins or other mods that don't work with the current version.

What if you have a customized or custom app - should you budget an extra half million or so every few years to adapt to Apple's whims about supporting official APIs?


Windows - still supporting 16-bit applications from 1992 on x86 Windows 7, and on x64 Windows 7 via "Windows XP mode" virtual machines
Apple OSX - you want to run apps from 2007?


If I would have bought a software made for PPC that I would have taught I would go for the long run:

- I made a poor business planning decision, and it's my bad.
- OR/AND, I could still use SL and support it on SL. Anything new wouldn't have be done in Lion anyways.

Moreover:
- You cannot arguing enough of POOR business planning.
- Hardly apps made for PPC were supported properly anyways.
- Those hybrid like Adobe's CAN effort of moving to Cocoa, and I believe that they were aware of Apple's strategy.

And that is not about the business spending money to adapt to Apple because they should have known already. They said that those API were ment for transition. They said that should move to Cocoa over time. They said that OS X was game for 20 years. Apple had to move off from PPC. And you CANNOT make an argument of Apple 'bad' decision of supporting official API, but should argue if is reasonable to support old API that were ment to be gone - also Knight made a good statement about it.

One more thing. IF and BUT will take you nowhere. That is happening, is black and white. Stay on SL or move to Lion.

Eventually petrol won't be use to run your car. You know that is happening, whenever all cars will be all running on other sources you cannot argue on why petrol cars cannot run on petrol anymore. And that is it.

AidenShaw
Jun 18, 2011, 11:31 PM
Also you're kidding yourself if you think that Windows x86 truly supports 16-bit software.

NTVDM has never supported direct memory access from 16-bit (DOS/Win3.1) application. This was true in 1992, and is still true.


A lot of applications (in my experience) relied on specific mappings in the DOS environment that were changed or removed in latter OS revisions. This breaks a large majority of 16-bit software.

Few applications in my experience have depended on direct memory mapping in DOS. Almost no 16-bit applications have failed to run for me.

Please justify your claim of "large majority" - it certainly doesn't jibe with my experience.

And, for the sake of Gord, what does it matter what percentage of DOS applications from 1990 run on Windows 7 - when *NO* Apple OSX applications from 2005 will run on Apple OSX 10.7?

ronwasserman
Jun 18, 2011, 11:41 PM
Downloaded the iBank demo, exported my Quicken data (10 years worth) imported in iBank and was up and running in a few minutes. I am so happy to be done with Quicken. It was such a dog to do reports with.

BTW - Using for small corporation and personal purposes.

Good luck!

MorphingDragon
Jun 18, 2011, 11:54 PM
NTVDM has never supported direct memory access from 16-bit (DOS/Win3.1) application. This was true in 1992, and is still true.

Few applications in my experience have depended on direct memory mapping in DOS. Almost no 16-bit applications have failed to run for me.

Please justify your claim of "large majority" - it certainly doesn't jibe with my experience.

I wasn't only referring to memory mapping. IRQ mapping and FS mappings are another.

A trivial example would be audio in games, a lot of 16-bit DOS games assumed that the sound card was mapped to IRQ2, this was not the case in Win98 and could not be changed.


And, for the sake of Gord, what does it matter what percentage of DOS applications from 1990 run on Windows 7 - when *NO* Mac applications from 2005 will run on Apple OSX 10.7?

You're the on who said it, I was only calling you out on it like the little B**ch that I am. Plus being a thorn in your side is like crack to me.

In reality, though **** if Apple removes PPC support. If you don't have a contingency plan as a business your planning dept needs to be sacked. This is a non-issue for many consumers and a bump in a road for competent Admins.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 07:29 AM
I wasn't only referring to memory mapping. IRQ mapping and FS mappings are another.

A trivial example would be audio in games, a lot of 16-bit DOS games assumed that the sound card was mapped to IRQ2, this was not the case in Win98 and could not be changed.

I should have used the phrase "direct hardware access" instead of "direct memory access" - NT won't allow programs to "peek" and "poke" device registers (which are memory locations) and similar hardware functions except in a device driver.

DOS allowed (required) this in some situations, quite possibly a majority of early games.

MorphingDragon
Jun 19, 2011, 07:39 AM
I should have used the phrase "direct hardware access" instead of "direct memory access" - NT won't allow programs to "peek" and "poke" device registers (which are memory locations) and similar hardware functions except in a device driver.

DOS allowed (required) this in some situations, quite possibly a majority of early games.

A lot of programs with functions that seem normal now needed direct access. Obviously audio, but a lot of "internet ready" programs and stuff that generally just needed to access functions of an expansion card. It was hell if you were and Audio tech. Unix had a much better method for accessing hardware.

Digging through some of my old floppies some of them had stickers saying NT READY! They tended to be things like productivity apps.

Fraaaa
Jun 19, 2011, 08:02 AM
Windows 7 system requirements
If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DVD/CD authoring requires a compatible optical drive

Windows XP Mode requires an additional 1 GB of RAM and an additional 15 GB of available hard disk space.

----

Mac OS X Lion System Requirements
In order to install Mac OS X 10.7 you will need:

Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, or Xeon processor
2GB of RAM
Mac OS X 10.6.6 or later with the Mac App Store installed
At least 4GB of additional disk space to accommodate the download, but more is obviously recommended.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 09:24 AM
Windows 7 system requirements
If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DVD/CD authoring requires a compatible optical drive

Windows XP Mode requires an additional 1 GB of RAM and an additional 15 GB of available hard disk space.

----

Mac OS X Lion System Requirements
In order to install Mac OS X 10.7 you will need:

Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7, or Xeon processor
2GB of RAM
Mac OS X 10.6.6 or later with the Mac App Store installed
At least 4GB of additional disk space to accommodate the download, but more is obviously recommended.

What's the point - that Apple doesn't tell you how much disk space you'll need and Microsoft does?

MorphingDragon
Jun 19, 2011, 09:44 AM
What's the point - that Apple doesn't tell you how much disk space you'll need and Microsoft does?

Because Apple's OSX install can be customized while Windows doesn't give you a choice unless you modify the install disk. The nature of the install means that space might be freed from the overall OS aswell. They can't state the minimum size because its false advertising but they can't state the maximum size because its false advertising. They can do what every other customizable *nix OS does, tells you the minimum size and that it can get bigger.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 10:24 AM
Because Apple's OSX install can be customized while Windows doesn't give you a choice unless you modify the install disk. The nature of the install means that space might be freed from the overall OS aswell. They can't state the minimum size because its false advertising but they can't state the maximum size because its false advertising. They can do what every other customizable *nix OS does, tells you the minimum size and that it can get bigger.

The previous post, though, appeared to be trying to draw a conclusion by comparing two different types of data.

The proper comparison is that Apple OSX is about 33% bigger than Windows (the Win7 x64 DVD is 3.0 GiB (3.22 GB), x86 is 2.3 GiB (2.50 GB)).

And my point is that Apple doesn't tell you the minimum size, it's telling you the size of the installation kit.

MorphingDragon
Jun 19, 2011, 10:26 AM
The previous post, though, appeared to be trying to draw a conclusion by comparing two different types of data.

The proper comparison is that Apple OSX is about 33% bigger than Windows (the Win7 x64 DVD is 3.0 GiB (3.22 GB), x86 is 2.3 GiB (2.50 GB)).

And my point is that Apple doesn't tell you the minimum size, it's telling you the size of the installation kit.

But the minimum size of each install will change if Lion is indeed upgrade only. There is a potential to gain hard rive space (ignoring the rescue partition) because of the stripped out cruft of things like PPC. Legally I would find it hard to properly state a size without incomplete data or qualifiers.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 10:41 AM
But the minimum size of each install will change if Lion is indeed upgrade only. There is a potential to gain hard rive space (ignoring the rescue partition) because of the stripped out cruft of things like PPC. Legally I would find it hard to properly state a size without incomplete data or qualifiers.

Again, the point is the attempt to compare the maximum O-O-T-B size of a Windows system with the size of the Apple OSX kit.

As an admin, I find it much more useful to have maximum size quoted so that I can plan, than to have nothing. This is especially true if you're doing a clean installation on a different partition.

(This argument is going nowhere - as you said you're only here to harass me. Ciao.)

MorphingDragon
Jun 19, 2011, 10:50 AM
Again, the point is the attempt to compare the maximum O-O-T-B size of a Windows system with the size of the Apple OSX kit.

As an admin, I find it much more useful to have maximum size quoted so that I can plan, than to have nothing. This is especially true if you're doing a clean installation on a different partition.

(This argument is going nowhere - as you said you're only here to harass me. Ciao.)

The original "statement" was nothing and any meaning was fabricated by the reader. I was only trying to rationalize to you why Apple would omit such information. (Legal, esp. in NZ/AUS)

As an Admin the full size would mean nothing to me, especially when the full size can go into ranges of ridiculousness (50GB+). I would much rather a small applet or table that estimates the amount of disk space used based on configuration and included the min/max size limits.

I didn't say I was only here to harass you, again fabricated by the reader.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 19, 2011, 10:57 AM
But the minimum size of each install will change if Lion is indeed upgrade only. There is a potential to gain hard rive space (ignoring the rescue partition) because of the stripped out cruft of things like PPC. Legally I would find it hard to properly state a size without incomplete data or qualifiers.

If the user is going to run on that 4gig needed for Lion and think that having 20-30 gigs free for Windows 7 is going to be a problem then then the user is going problem then the user has other problems to worry about and will be having other major system issues.

You should always at at least 10-15% of your hard drive free at all times. That means assuming 200gig hard drive that is 20-30 gigs free at min and with 500 gigs+ becoming common even less of an issue. Hard drive space is cheap.

Reason for that 10% floor of free space is no matter what your OS performance starts taking some major damage when you drop below that point.

Personally I find comparing Apple numbers to Microsoft numbers weak at best. Chances are Apple is going to need much closer to MS numbers when it is all said and done.

MorphingDragon
Jun 19, 2011, 11:01 AM
If the user is going to run on that 4gig needed for Lion and think that having 20-30 gigs free for Windows 7 is going to be a problem then then the user is going problem then the user has other problems to worry about and will be having other major system issues.

You should always at at least 10-15% of your hard drive free at all times. That means assuming 200gig hard drive that is 20-30 gigs free at min and with 500 gigs+ becoming common even less of an issue. Hard drive space is cheap.

Reason for that 10% floor of free space is no matter what your OS performance starts taking some major damage when you drop below that point.

Personally I find comparing Apple numbers to Microsoft numbers weak at best. Chances are Apple is going to need much closer to MS numbers when it is all said and done.

I know all that, but legal matters don't seem to follow logic. ;) If no specific number is given, Apple can easily wriggle out of any stupendously stupid legal issues.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 19, 2011, 11:16 AM
I know all that, but legal matters don't seem to follow logic. ;) If no specific number is given, Apple can easily wriggle out of any stupendously stupid legal issues.

yep. To me it is yet another example of classic marketing BS from Apple. They can "claim" how little room Lion takes up compared to Windows 7 yet at the end of the day they really take up the same amount of room. I would not be surprised in the least to find out that on a normal install (including update) it takes up 15-20 gigs of space just like windows 7 requires.

Got to love marketing no matter where you go no matter what company marketing is full of BS and 1% truths.

davida1
Jun 19, 2011, 12:01 PM
I'm stopping you right there. If you don't fix bugs in the "older" librairies, you might be shipping a system with code paths that can lead to privilege escalation bugs, denial of service bugs or other nasties. As long as Apple ships the librairies on the system, they have to update and maintain them. Otherwise, they run the risk of making OS X vulnerable. What you are suggesting is a very serious security flaw waiting to happen. You can't just ship "frozen" code unless it's TeX and you're called Donald Knuth.

So there's no going around it. Either you remove the offending builds, or you keep on working on them, Q&Aing them and basically support them.

Not to mention, again, that stripping said librairies reduces the size of the OS on disk and as a download, which is for now the only way to get the OS. It's a plus for the user (who's downloading and storing it on his disk) and it's a plus for Apple (who now can stop doing Q&A, bug fixes, and having to be careful not to break compatibility when doing so).

Keep on ranting and wall of texting... I doubt at this point there's very many people getting to the end of your posts.

Have you considered that Apple will be maintaining 10.6 (and therefore these libraries) for a long time? Mac OS X is modular, and to do minimal maintenance on a library with a static API and feature set is, well, minimal. Most of the Q&A is automated. APIs are nearly always backward-compatible, and if you really want to know, just look at the list of deprecated APIs/calls in Snow leper.

To be balanced (unlike above post), there will come a day when Apple stops maintaining Snow Leper, and would they then stop maintaining Rosetta in Lion?

If users download the bulk of Rosetta separately, then I think the additional disk space for non-Rosetta users would be minimal. But, I don't know the amount, and apparently no one else has even a ballpark number for this.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 19, 2011, 12:13 PM
Have you considered that Apple will be maintaining 10.6 (and therefore these libraries) for a long time? Mac OS X is modular, and to do minimal maintenance on a library with a static API and feature set is, well, minimal. Most of the Q&A is automated. APIs are nearly always backward-compatible, and if you really want to know, just look at the list of deprecated APIs/calls in Snow leper.

To be balanced (unlike above post), there will come a day when Apple stops maintaining Snow Leper, and would they then stop maintaining Rosetta in Lion?

If users download the bulk of Rosetta separately, then I think the additional disk space for non-Rosetta users would be minimal. But, I don't know the amount, and apparently no one else has even a ballpark number for this.


one problem. Apple really does not maintain its older OS. Pretty much as soon as a new OS is release all you will see for older OS is security fixes at best. Apple pretty much done with SL. Microsoft does real maintenance and patches for their OS but Apple on the other hand not so much.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 12:41 PM
As an admin, I find it much more useful to have maximum size quoted so that I can plan, than to have nothing. This is especially true if you're doing a clean installation on a different partition.

For what it's worth, a Win7 x64 installation comes in at 11.2 GiB. Add the paging and hibernate file to that, and you're still way under 20 GiB.


I didn't say I was only here to harass you, again fabricated by the reader.

Oh really? I didn't fabricate this post:

You're the on who said it, I was only calling you out on it like the little B**ch that I am. Plus being a thorn in your side is like crack to me.

KnightWRX
Jun 19, 2011, 12:42 PM
Have you considered that Apple will be maintaining 10.6 (and therefore these libraries) for a long time?

Define long time. Snow Leopard is a LTS version ? It will remain in support longer than Lion ? Of course not. Snow Leopard will reach EOL/EOS before Lion does, hence Apple will get to drop PPC for good earlier than Lion's EOL/EOS.

And frankly, what does it change ? So what if the line is 10.8... 10.9... all the same 3rd party vendors will still be dragging their feet (Intuit, looking at you!) if you don't force some obsolescence.

Users are not left without options. Like you say, Apple will be maintaining 10.6, so what's the beef ? You want to run old software, you run the old OS. It's just how it goes.

Mac OS X is modular, and to do minimal maintenance on a library with a static API and feature set is, well, minimal. Most of the Q&A is automated. APIs are nearly always backward-compatible, and if you really want to know, just look at the list of deprecated APIs/calls in Snow leper.

Modularity has nothing to do with it. The PPC frameworks and librairies are not deprecated at all. They are the same Cocoa frameworks and Carbon frameworks that people use to write Intel software. Sure you don't do a full build of all of them when you fix one, it's not one huge monolithic librairie. But, you still have to keep in mind that you can't just "code freeze" the PPC stuff and hope to ship a secure system.

As long as Apple remains current with these, they have to make sure not to break PPC backwards compatibility if they ship it, and they have to provide bug fixes on both architectures, especially security bugs.

Q&A might be automated (a lot of IT/programming is), but it still requires humans to do. More time that is spent in PPC regression tests, less that is spent in new features and frameworks.

To be balanced (unlike above post), there will come a day when Apple stops maintaining Snow Leper, and would they then stop maintaining Rosetta in Lion?

So I'm not balanced then ? Because I'm saying things you don't want to hear, I'm somehow heavily biased ?

Again,

davida1
Jun 19, 2011, 02:10 PM
so i'm not balanced then ? Because i'm saying things you don't want to hear, i'm somehow heavily biased ?

q.e.d.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 05:11 PM
For what it's worth, a Win7 x64 installation comes in at 11.2 GiB. Add the paging and hibernate file to that, and you're still way under 20 GiB.

I double-checked, and it's only 7.6 GiB for Win7 Ultimate x64.

Many components in the side-by-side directories are really links. My first check walked the filesystem, so linked files were counted multiple times.

Looking at the volume properties showed much less space in use.

FluJunkie
Jun 19, 2011, 07:26 PM
Even when Quicken *did* have full OS support, it was a poorly coded problems. Nothing on my machine, including things *I* write, has given me as much hassle over the lifetime of my computer as Quicken has.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 19, 2011, 07:55 PM
things that crashed and burned on Vista were from even farther back. We are talking pre windows 95 or it was using hooks from before that time. Both things should of been removed a long time after. Largest thing is if it runs x86 (32 bit code) it is going to work just fine. I can still run the original DOOM on my computer now days. Does not use any fancy hooks that would cause it to be blocked and it is x86 32bit code.

Good luck trying to run that on a Mac.

I can run Doom on my PowerMac in Tiger still. It runs like crap unless you're actually in OS9, though. ;)


- You cannot arguing enough of POOR business planning.


I'll assume you're referring to Apple here since it is Apple that continually gives ZERO notice to software developers about ANY of its future plans and regularly dumps support for things at the last second with no notice at all and sometimes even no announcements. Things just suddenly stop working. But e-mail Steve and he'll send "yep" back to you. That's really professional behavior on Apple's part. It's why they're still and utter joke on the enterprise front. Even Steve knows it and it's why he decided to just pull their rack mount server. NO ONE is using it. It's supported like CRAP. All of Steve's 20 programmers are too buys making iOS 6 right now to work on ANYTHING else. And he won't hire more since he has to do an ultra-background check and have personally known each of them since they were 5 years old or else he feels he may not have enough control over them. :rolleyes:

Windows 7 system requirements
If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)

16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

DVD/CD authoring requires a compatible optical drive

Windows XP Mode requires an additional 1 GB of RAM and an additional 15 GB of available hard disk space.


Hot darn, my very first Windows based PC from 1999 can run Windows7! Woohoo! :eek: It's a 1GHz PIII with 1GB ram and 80GB of HD space.

My first Mac from 2005 cannot run Snow Leopard even (let alone Lion) because Steve said PPC Macs suck hard.


I'm stopping you right there.


God knows I wish you'd stop. :D

But I finally realized why your posts on any subject are so arrogant, condescending and yet also usually wrong and seem to demonstrate time and time again that you cannot read English very well because you're always mis-quoting or otherwise putting words in people's mouths, etc. That is to say that I finally noticed where you're from. :D

one problem. Apple really does not maintain its older OS. Pretty much as soon as a new OS is release all you will see for older OS is security fixes at best. Apple pretty much done with SL. Microsoft does real maintenance and patches for their OS but Apple on the other hand not so much.

This is, unfortunately, entirely true. I cannot think of a time that Apple released an update other than security for OSX once the next version is out. Microsoft can and does support legacy OS versions for quite some time. The core of the problem is that Apple has ZERO interest in doing software updates to begin with. To Apple, software is largely a means to an end and little else. That is to say its sole purpose is to sell hardware. That's where Apple makes the (pardon the pun) lion's share of its profits, not software, so they have little incentive to support anything very well, really. Is why they threw OSX to the dogs in favor of pushing iOS as fast as possible as they realize they can bring out new models every year and re-sell the same 30 million phones ALL OVER AGAIN. Sorry, but we dropped support for iPhone 4 with iOS 6 so you'll have to buy a new phone! Cha-ching!

KnightWRX
Jun 19, 2011, 07:59 PM
But I finally realized why your posts on any subject are ...also usually wrong

Please feel free to debunk them instead of attacking my location. :rolleyes:

If I'm so wrong all the time, it shouldn't be hard to prove my points wrong now should it ?

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 08:09 PM
As an Admin the full size would mean nothing to me, especially when the full size can go into ranges of ridiculousness (50GB+).

I just re-read this - and I'm curious as to which boxes one needs to check during an Apple OSX installation to create a 50 GB+ system from a 4GB kit or DVD....

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 19, 2011, 08:22 PM
Please feel free to debunk them instead of attacking my location. :rolleyes:

If I'm so wrong all the time, it shouldn't be hard to prove my points wrong now should it ?

I was joking dude. You can't tell attacks from rants from jokes. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

In any case, I did debunk all your arguments. You apparently cannot comprehend them and so you just attack my posts with pointless claims of rants and other nonsense instead of actual logic. You claim Apple CANNOT do what Microsoft has already done for XP and virtualize PPC support. They can't do this because the libraries are old? WTF? I guess that means I cannot run my old Amiga programs on an Amiga emulator because the libraries are old and might have vulnerabilities that Commodore won't fix! Yes, not running something at all is MUCH BETTER than running something with a known risk. Oh wait. Apple doesn't do security updates for Tiger. Does that mean we shouldn't run it? :eek:

KnightWRX
Jun 19, 2011, 08:28 PM
In any case, I did debunk all your arguments.

No, you didn't. You tried to provide workarounds that Apple could offer. You did not debunk the facts I presented.

You claim Apple CANNOT do what Microsoft has already done for XP and virtualize PPC support.

Microsoft still supports Windows XP. Kind of goes against what Apple is trying to achieve here.

They can't do this because the libraries are old? WTF?

Again, they aren't. The Cocoa frameworks are the same, PPC or Intel. Any fixes to the Intel side must not break the PPC side. Any security patches applied to the Intel side must also be applied to the PPC side if the same vulnerability exists there. Otherwise, Apple is shipping a known broken and insecure system.

I guess that means I cannot run my old Amiga programs on an Amiga emulator because the libraries are old and might have vulnerabilities that Commodore won't fix!

Commodore doesn't ship your Amiga emulator, nor is it one of their supported configurations.

Get it now ? All you've done is rant and whine and tried to come up with non-sensical scenarios. The cold hard facts are before us : Apple decided 10.6 was the end of the line for PPC installations, they decided 10.7 was end of the line for PPC builds. If you want an "emulator" based off "the old libraries", feel free to build one yourself as an open source project or as a shareware program or as a full blown commercial effort, Apple is done.

It's easy to find 100 scenarios that "could" work when you're not the pockets paying to implement them.

Fraaaa
Jun 19, 2011, 08:45 PM
I'll assume you're referring to Apple here since it is Apple that continually gives ZERO notice to software developers about ANY of its future plans and regularly dumps support for things at the last second with no notice at all and sometimes even no announcements. Things just suddenly stop working. But e-mail Steve and he'll send "yep" back to you. That's really professional behavior on Apple's part. It's why they're still and utter joke on the enterprise front. Even Steve knows it and it's why he decided to just pull their rack mount server. NO ONE is using it. It's supported like CRAP. All of Steve's 20 programmers are too buys making iOS 6 right now to work on ANYTHING else. And he won't hire more since he has to do an ultra-background check and have personally known each of them since they were 5 years old or else he feels he may not have enough control over them. :rolleyes:

No, I meant those companies that relied on Carbon APIs even though Apple stated that they should move overtime on Cocoa and gave them 10 years to do so. Carbon and Classic were supported only for easy transition from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. Apple did state their plan to developers and was to move to Cocoa and that we are going to have OS X for the next 20 years.

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 09:04 PM
...and that we are going to have OS X for the next 20 years.

They said that about 12 years ago, so only 8 years left.

Fraaaa
Jun 19, 2011, 09:50 PM
They said that about 12 years ago, so only 8 years left.

OS X was released on March 2001, so we got 10 years.

About Apple not supporting old OS. Was last update for Mac OS 9 (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1387) on 2009?

AidenShaw
Jun 19, 2011, 10:45 PM
OS X was released on March 2001, so we got 10 years.

About Apple not supporting old OS. Was last update for Mac OS 9 (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1387) on 2009?

Hera was released in March 1999, and Kodiak in September 2000. I wasn't able to find the date on Jobs' "20 year" speech.

In any event, we're at least half-way through it.

...and Apple OS 9.2.2 was October 2008 - but that's kind of nonsense if you compare it to Microsoft's monthly patch kits for XP.

MorphingDragon
Jun 20, 2011, 12:55 AM
I just re-read this - and I'm curious as to which boxes one needs to check during an Apple OSX installation to create a 50 GB+ system from a 4GB kit or DVD....

I thought we were speaking generally - not just about OSX. Would it be useful if RedHat or Lexis Nexus told you only that a "full install" of a particular software takes up 40GB when most installs only install a partial amount of features.

In smaller, simpler installs, a table would automatically scale to a min/max size.


Oh really? I didn't fabricate this post:

No, but that post didn't say I was only here to harass you.

res1233
Jun 20, 2011, 02:25 AM
Try SEE Finance. They seem to be dedicated to mac development seeing as it's a 64-bit binary, which implies Cocoa, and thus will be maintainable in the long-term (unless something changes). It has most of the features quicken has too, and can import from it.

KnightWRX
Jun 20, 2011, 05:59 AM
About Apple not supporting old OS. Was last update for Mac OS 9 (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1387) on 2009?

...and Apple OS 9.2.2 was October 2008

Hum... no it wasn't :

http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1293?viewlocale=en_US

December 5th, 2001. Apple does not really have any LTS versions of their OSes.

MagnusVonMagnum
Jun 20, 2011, 05:56 PM
No, you didn't. You tried to provide workarounds that Apple could offer. You did not debunk the facts I presented.

What facts? All I see are your claims that it would cost Apple a fortune to include little-old Rosetta with Lion and oh it would take too much space to include it and those on poor dial-up would have to download a whole extra 20MB in addition the 4GB that Apple already REQUIRES for EVERYONE (no disc distribution that I've seen so far for Lion). Instead of pointing that ridiculous requirement out, you go on and on about how Rosetta is just too much for poor little Apple's meager resources to include. Forget about software libraries, folks. The Mac might as well have no existed before 2005 since nothing older than that can possibly run in Lion and beyond. Oh well. Buy more hardware and buy new software. That's the new Mac legacy.


Commodore doesn't ship your Amiga emulator, nor is it one of their supported configurations.


So what? What makes you think libraries are the insecure aspects of OSX to begin with, let alone old libraries for limited use PPC code? Who exactly is going to write malware for those old libraries if they are used in a virtual machine or emulator environment? The truth is you just reach for straws...ANY straws to try and make yourself sound like you're right. In fact, I cannot think of a single person in my entire life that I've seen that feels the need to be 'right' more than you (and I've seen quite a few in my lifetime). The idea of a forum is to discuss ideas, not play 'This is how it is and you're wrong'. Grow up already.


Get it now ? All you've done is rant and whine


Sorry, but you are the one that whines and rants. You don't argue. You just accuse people of whining and ranting and that seems to be your whole argument (anyone can look back through your posts on the past 3 pages and see you accuse me of 'ranting' and 'whining' while I present my arguments and your 'arguments' are nothing more than accusations of me whining and ranting. It's funny. Name-calling means you already lost the argument. That means you've lost it about a half dozen times already because bringing up the 'whining and ranting' card is getting old.

You sound like a little kid to me in this thread. How old are you?

Akorn240!!
Jun 20, 2011, 10:43 PM
This conversation is quickly moving beyond tiring!

Intuit and Apple can play tennis and keep the ball bouncing back and forth. Intuit did not get it right after 2007, why think they care about getting it right for Lion?

One suggested alternative is buy and install a windows VM and then buy and install the latest windows Quicken. If people need to do it, good success.

For me, I am asking why pay for and install a VM on my Mac so I can (again) buy a new copy of Quicken (and this time for windows) when Intuit let us down with the new version after 2007? I am not interested in rewarding a company that got it wrong (and still hasn't produced and delivered an alternative to make it right from 2007) with another purchase of their software...