Intuit Releases Lion-Compatible Quicken 2007 for Mac

[Spike Lightfoot]

This update is a solution to only part of the problems I'm facing now:

1. Two core duo machines in our house both incompatible with Lion, hence no iCloud, and we'll lose MobileMe in a couple of months.
2. Still running Quicken 2002 (yes, 2002!) via Rosetta on 10.6.8. It still works. It still imports QIF files, and I've even written scripts to convert our bank's CSV files into QIF for import, as well as downloading stock quotes from Yahoo. Talk about workarounds...

Upgrading machines will enable Lion and give us use of iCloud.

But If I upgrade hardware to solve #1, then #2 becomes a problem, requiring the new Quicken update, and there's no upgrade/import path directly from our existing Quicken files into the new Lion-ready Q2007.

I think I just talked myself out of upgrading computers. Technology is a minefield.

 

[KPOM]

But, since the majority of Windows users (including Apple users who run Windows under VMware or that other product) don't need "XP Mode" and would only injure themselves if they tried Bitlocker - this is mostly irrelevant. In particular, running "XP Mode" or Bitlocker on a virtualized instance of Windows running on an Apple borders on the absurd.

And note, of course, that "XP Mode" is just "Virtual PC" - which is free - plus some handy shortcuts. You don't need Ultimate (or Professional) to run XP virtual machines on Win7.

XP Mode was mentioned in the context of Microsoft providing better backward compatibility. While that is generally true, in the case of XP Mode (which is intended primarily so that small businesses can run ancient software they still need), it is available only on the Pro and higher versions. While Virtual PC is free, you do need to have a license for XP to use it. With XP Mode on Windows 7 Pro, you do not need a separate XP license.

 

[Green Butterfly]

iBank rocks

I upgraded to Lion, switched to iBank and haven't looked back. It handles my investment accounts as well as the usual checking and credit card accounts.

 

[AidenShaw]

XP Mode was mentioned in the context of Microsoft providing better backward compatibility. While that is generally true, in the case of XP Mode (which is intended primarily so that small businesses can run ancient software they still need), it is available only on the Pro and higher versions. While Virtual PC is free, you do need to have a license for XP to use it. With XP Mode on Windows 7 Pro, you do not need a separate XP license.

True, but nit-picking.

Apple leaves you no option for running some 2007-era software, while Microsoft support for some 1980's-early 1990's software is free on higher end SKUs of the OS. (Most Win95 and later software works as is on all SKUs...)

Do I need to emphasize that "Win95" means software packages built in 1995?

 

[John.B]

But, since the majority of Windows users (including Apple users who run Windows under VMware or that other product) don't need "XP Mode" and would only injure themselves if they tried Bitlocker - this is mostly irrelevant. In particular, running "XP Mode" or Bitlocker on a virtualized instance of Windows running on an Apple borders on the absurd.

And note, of course, that "XP Mode" is just "Virtual PC" - which is free - plus some handy shortcuts. You don't need Ultimate (or Professional) to run XP virtual machines on Win7.

Remember, this whole XP Mode discussion was based around Retro's claims that it represented Microsoft's commitment to backward compatibility (and that it was "free").

It had nothing to do with running Windows XP in a virtual on OSX.

That said, I couldn't find definitive documentation that said Windows Home Premium included an XP license for running Windows XP in a Virtual PC.

True, but nit-picking.

Apple leaves you no option for running some 2007-era software, while Microsoft support for some 1980's-early 1990's software is free on higher end SKUs of the OS. (Most Win95 and later software works as is on all SKUs...)

Do I need to emphasize that "Win95" means software packages built in 1995?

The only thing that's supported is XP from one of the top priced SKUs of Windows 7.

 

[AidenShaw]

The only thing that's supported is XP from one of the top priced SKUs of Windows 7.

Is that not exactly what I said?

And note that the salient issue is that the higher Win7 SKUs include a WinXP license that makes it legal to run XP VMs on the Win7 system.

If you already have a WinXP license, you can run XP VMs for free on any Win7 system - subject to the terms that you accepted with that WinXP license.

Is there any Apple OSX 10.7 SKU that lets you run the PPC apps that you already own?

 

[John.B]

Is that not exactly what I said?

And note that the salient issue is that the higher Win7 SKUs include a WinXP license that makes it legal to run XP VMs on the Win7 system.

If you already have a WinXP license, you can run XP VMs for free on any Win7 system - subject to the terms that you accepted with that WinXP license.

Is there any Apple OSX 10.7 SKU that lets you run the PPC apps that you already own?

Off in the weeds again, Aiden?

The salient point of the discussion was where Retro said XP Mode was "free", which for most users it isn't (despite the fact that the "Ultimate" SKU costs an OEM a mere few shekels more than Home Premium).

While we're having fun with this, let's discuss how insecure XP Mode still is. What's the primary reason people run it? IE6 support. Which, I think we can all agree is the single most insecure piece of software ever foisted on mankind. And let's not forget that it's not automatically updated to IE7/IE8 (by design).

Circling around again back on topic... As painful as it may seem, that's actually the reason to not run 10 year-old software or operating systems. The solution isn't to bridge back to past versions, but to update to supported software.

And if a vendor abandons their user base (cough, cough, Intuit, cough), all the more reason to not continue support them financially.

The Intel transition was announced in mid-2005 and Intel Macs began to be released in 2006. WTF has Intuit been doing for the past six years? It makes you wonder if William "Bill" V. Campbell actually attends board meetings.

 

[SeaFox]

Yes, and how many people actually ran Windows XP 64-bit? Not many, because it was incompatible with lots of software and drivers. It wasn't until Windows 7 that the 64-bit versions became more popular.

I ran XP-64, in fact I still use it technically since it's one of the options to boot into on my PC, except I spend most of my time in the Windows 8 DP instead. I haven't had a problem with drivers either, except when it came to iTunes.

XP-64 is not a supported operating system for iTunes, just because Apple doesn't want to make it one really. There's a hacked installer that will run on it and after a separate download of the 64-bit versions of the CD drivers I had a working iTunes 8.0.2, no modifications to iTunes itself needed other than to get the installer to ignore the Windows version it was running on and drivers so I could rip my CDs -- something Apple could have included just as easily if they'd wanted. Interfaces with my iPod Nano (4th gen) fine as well.

Mac OS X has only one edition, which is the equivalent to Windows (7) Ultimate.

So OSX has built-in DVR software and a 10-foot UI to use it on your HDTV?

 

[Avatar74]

So OSX has built-in DVR software and a 10-foot UI to use it on your HDTV?

Most of the UI is scalable resolution independent graphics.... Designed at this point for use on displays with higher than HD resolution. So yes to #2.

As for DVR... you know what's interesting... I haven't used a DVR in over two years. You know why? I haven't used cable. You know why? I get all my content how I want, when I want, on the devices I want... without paying up the nose for 900 channels of crap just to get that tier of 10 HD channels, 2 of which are any good.

And I do all this via an onscreen menu, using my computer, iPhone or iPad as a GUI-based remote (as an alternative to the available IR remote).

So why do I want DVR software? To record programs I wish I could watch whenever I wanted, instead of just watching them whenever I want?

 

[AidenShaw]

So OSX has built-in DVR software and a 10-foot UI to use it on your HDTV?

Media Center is included in Home Premium....

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/compare

 

[John.B]

So why do I want DVR software? To record programs I wish I could watch whenever I wanted, instead of just watching them whenever I want?

The whole PC-as-DVR thing is mostly overblown hype, anyway.

Yeah, sure, it does work, but it's a moot point with cable operators that won't give you access to the HD channels you're paying for, except through their proprietary cable box with their proprietary DVR (which they charge both rental and access fees for that privilege).

But, yeah, on the off chance you want to record OTA programming, it should be fine.

 

[saberahul]

Yup, dropped Intuit long ago. Moved to Pageonce on the iOS devices. Wish they would come out with a Mac app (although the website is just as good).

 

[JAT]

I'll go back to a spreadsheet before putting over 20 years of financial data in the cloud.

If it is just "data in the cloud" that bothers you, you might want to get over it. Everything is going to "cloud". Most accounting packages are either exclusive or offering cloud versions where data is stored somewhere "else".

That's a "point of view" call, and many don't share that point of view.

I think that was just about price. And to the user, OSX is currently far cheaper. Which is just weird, but true.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Circling around again back on topic... As painful as it may seem, that's actually the reason to not run 10 year-old software or operating systems. The solution isn't to bridge back to past versions, but to update to supported software.

And if a vendor abandons their user base (cough, cough, Intuit, cough), all the more reason to not continue support them financially.

The Intel transition was announced in mid-2005 and Intel Macs began to be released in 2006. WTF has Intuit been doing for the past six years? It makes you wonder if William "Bill" V. Campbell actually attends board meetings.

Again it does absolutely no good to criticize Intuit. We know they are awful. The problem is, nobody has fully filled the void they have created for Mac users. Partially, and perhaps sufficiently for some users, but not all. This is the real issue that tends to get glossed over in these discussions.

Apple should have better understood this when they yanked Rosetta in Lion. They left a lot of us high and dry.

BTW, Bill Campbell was an old FoS. That's why he was on the board. It will be interesting to see if he remains there.

 

[diane143]

If it is just "data in the cloud" that bothers you, you might want to get over it. Everything is going to "cloud". Most accounting packages are either exclusive or offering cloud versions where data is stored somewhere "else".

After losing one too many technical articles I wrote on forums that crashed and never came back, it's going to take me a long long time to get over it. Yep, my fault for not typing on the computer and doing a cut and paste, but that is much more difficult with 22 years of finances in one program (older years have been archived).

I guess I feel if it's going to be lost, I'd prefer to lose it to my own hard drive crash than someone "elses" for the moment.

As long as there are local solutions that's where I'll lean. I've got enough financial stuff floating around out there. No one needs to know how much I spent on cat litter in a year, or oil for my car, etc.

My .02 (no pun intended).

Anyone do the upgrade yet on a Tiger machine? I may give it a try next week if I have time to breathe.

 

[SeaFox]

Most of the UI is scalable resolution independent graphics.... Designed at this point for use on displays with higher than HD resolution. So yes to #2.

A 10-foot UI is more than "it supports resolutions larger than HD". Try again. You need to be able to navigate it easily without a full keyboard and mouse.

Yeah, sure, it does work, but it's a moot point with cable operators that won't give you access to the HD channels you're paying for, except through their proprietary cable box with their proprietary DVR (which they charge both rental and access fees for that privilege).

http://www.amazon.com/Ceton-InfiniTV-Digital-Cable-Quad-tuner/dp/B003B4VLJQ/

 

[RLUK]

Does anyone know where customers living in the UK can download this update from?

Quicken's website will only let you download it if you live in the USA and have a US credit card (both of which I do not). Intuit's customer service were less than helpful and I can't find the download on Amazon.

 

[73ragtop]

True, but nit-picking.

Apple leaves you no option for running some 2007-era software, while Microsoft support for some 1980's-early 1990's software is free on higher end SKUs of the OS. (Most Win95 and later software works as is on all SKUs...)

Do I need to emphasize that "Win95" means software packages built in 1995?

Many of you write as if Apple actually owned Rosetta and could continue to update it into perpetuity if they wished. Rosetta was developed and owned by Transitive Corporation of Los Gatos, CA and licensed to Apple. In either 2008 or 2009, IBM bought Transitive along with the rights to Rosetta. IBM was one of the three original inventors of the PowerPC chip, along with Apple and Motorola.

After Apple dropped the PowerPC chip in favor of the Intel processor family, I doubt that Apple could get favorable terms on licensing Rosetta from IBM, if they could get any terms at all. Whether this is true or not, the fact is that Rosetta is not and never has been Apple's to do with as it pleased.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Many of you write as if Apple actually owned Rosetta and could continue to update it into perpetuity if they wished. Rosetta was developed and owned by Transitive Corporation of Los Gatos, CA and licensed to Apple. In either 2008 or 2009, IBM bought Transitive along with the rights to Rosetta. IBM was one of the three original inventors of the PowerPC chip, along with Apple and Motorola.

After Apple dropped the PowerPC chip in favor of the Intel processor family, I doubt that Apple could get favorable terms on licensing Rosetta from IBM, if they could get any terms at all. Whether this is true or not, the fact is that Rosetta is not and never has been Apple's to do with as it pleased.

IBM acquired Transitive in late 2008. You make a good point, but I wonder why Apple didn't buy Transitive. A small company with Apple being one its biggest customers could not have cost very much in the scheme of things (the price paid by IBM is unknown). A lot we don't know here, including whether Apple's license to Rosetta was no longer valid, would have been prohibitively costly to renew, or if any of this even factored into Apple's decision to drop Rosetta support in Lion.

Apple also, and apparently intentionally, made this transition much more problematical for MobileMe users. I, along many other MobileMe users will be faced with a real dilemma come June if we can't replace key apps. I will probably be forced to move to iCloud and lose syncing functionality I've enjoyed for years, at least for a few months. Even if this new version of Quicken is okay (the $15 price does not bother me) I'm not going to want to upgrade to Lion with Mountain Lion right around the corner.

I still think Apple mismanaged the Lion transition. This is notable because in the past they've always done these things well. So much pain this time around.

 

[KPOM]

I ran XP-64, in fact I still use it technically since it's one of the options to boot into on my PC, except I spend most of my time in the Windows 8 DP instead. I haven't had a problem with drivers either, except when it came to iTunes.

XP-64 is not a supported operating system for iTunes, just because Apple doesn't want to make it one really.

Actually, a lot of installers are like this (not just Apple). They were looking for a 32-bit kernel as a compatibility check (primarily so that they wouldn't attempt to load onto a 16-bit kernel) and then stopped when they didn't see one.

----------

I still think Apple mismanaged the Lion transition. This is notable because in the past they've always done these things well. So much pain this time around.

Yes, they could have done a better job of communicating it, particularly since they made such a big deal in 2006 about how you would never notice that Rosetta was there. In some respects, unlike with Classic (which you had to consciously enter to run old programs), Rosetta's seamlessness made developers and customers a little complacent.

That said, the writing should have been on the wall when Snow Leopard relegated Rosetta to an optional installation. Intuit isn't a struggling small developer. They are a large company with a lot of resources. They had plenty of time to make the move away from PowerPC code.

----------

IBM acquired Transitive in late 2008. You make a good point, but I wonder why Apple didn't buy Transitive.

I'm guessing it made more strategic sense for IBM since they still license PowerPC chips for embedded use. Apple likes to relegate old technology to the dust bin every so often, so it doesn't surprise me they didn't pursue it. It offered them a good excuse to drop the last vestiges of PowerPC support.

 

[Squeaky]

Better late than never !

I've been using quicken for mac since the mid 90s, and I have multiple accounts including a small business, investments, and multiple 401 & IRAs for various family members.

I went to Lion in January, keeping Quicken on an older machine running SL, but needed something on my new iMac.

Over the past 2 months I've been using iBank - and I find it far inferior to Quicken. Keyboard commands are virtually nonexistent, or completely counter-intuitive, thus making multi-line data entry a laborious chore. The investment section is overly rigid with very little in the way of user flexibility in regards to investment analysis. And I also find iBanks' statement reconciliation section to be far more labor intensive than quicken's.

Also, and this is very important, iBank has very limited options in terms of file exportation. I discovered this the hard way during tax prep - quicken easily allows me to break down individual account income/expenses by category detail and other selected parameters, then export as either qif or xcel. iBank's options for exporting data is very limited with no option for Xcel, as far as I can tell. Going back to quicken makes my accountant very happy.

I briefly tried moneydance, but it was way too limited for my use.

Converting data back from iBank to q=Quicken was a bit of a PITA, but everything is working great and I'm happy to be back on the Quicken bandwagon. It just works. I really don't care that it's a 2007 program, as it's still better than anything else out there by far.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, they could have done a better job of communicating it, particularly since they made such a big deal in 2006 about how you would never notice that Rosetta was there. In some respects, unlike with Classic (which you had to consciously enter to run old programs), Rosetta's seamlessness made developers and customers a little complacent.

That said, the writing should have been on the wall when Snow Leopard relegated Rosetta to an optional installation. Intuit isn't a struggling small developer. They are a large company with a lot of resources. They had plenty of time to make the move away from PowerPC code.

I don't see where it's a communications issue. Intuit certainly knew that Apple had shifted to x86 and wasn't going back, but the situation was that they'd already ceased development of Mac Quicken. So none of that made any real difference to Intuit, only to users with nowhere else to go.

I also have issues with apps that are available in x86 versions, but are expensive to upgrade. I had no reason to upgrade to a new version, but now I am forced to do so. The developers who haven't essentially abandoned the platform are probably delighted with Apple forcing the issue by deleting Rosetta. Replacing my older version of FileMaker with an x86 version alone is far more expensive than the Lion upgrade itself. I didn't need that.

None of this would concern me so much but Apple pulled the double whammy with MobileMe. In two months I will have to jump one way or another, to a lot of expense or a loss of functionality. They could have softened the blow by supporting iCloud in Snow Leopard, but they chose not to do that either.

I'm guessing it made more strategic sense for IBM since they still license PowerPC chips for embedded use. Apple likes to relegate old technology to the dust bin every so often, so it doesn't surprise me they didn't pursue it. It offered them a good excuse to drop the last vestiges of PowerPC support.

I think an excuse it what it was, fundamentally. Doesn't absolve them from blame.

 

[KPOM]

I don't see where it's a communications issue. Intuit certainly knew that Apple had shifted to x86 and wasn't going back, but the situation was that they'd already ceased development of Mac Quicken. So none of that made any real difference to Intuit, only to users with nowhere else to go.

I also have issues with apps that are available in x86 versions, but are expensive to upgrade. I had no reason to upgrade to a new version, but now I am forced to do so. The developers who haven't essentially abandoned the platform are probably delighted with Apple forcing the issue by deleting Rosetta. Replacing my older version of FileMaker with an x86 version alone is far more expensive than the Lion upgrade itself. I didn't need that.

However, I don't think Apple should necessarily keep old technology running just so that programmers don't need to update their software. That's essentially Microsoft's approach, and while there are certainly positives to Microsoft's commitment to backward compatibility, there are also negatives. Even Microsoft has had to break compatibility sometimes (e.g. 16-bit software in 64-bit versions of Windows).

I don't think Apple should have kept Rosetta around or purchased Transitive simply because Intuit decided not to update Quicken for Mac. Intuit was working on Quicken Essentials, and they should have done more to make it feature compatible and file compatible with Quicken for Windows.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

make it feature compatible and file compatible with Quicken for Windows.

Agree completely. There is no reason why the Windows and Mac versions of Quicken and TurboTax shouldn't have interoperable file formats.

 

[KPOM]

Agree completely. There is no reason why the Windows and Mac versions of Quicken and TurboTax shouldn't have interoperable file formats.

Turbotax actually has feature-parity and file compatibility. I have actually installed TurboTax on my Mac and Windows PCs for the past 3 years, saving it to a USB key so I could work on my return on either computer.