Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Quicken 2007 May Run on OS X Lion, Even With Rosetta Dead

Fortora Fresh Finance

Might as well add this product to the list.

I have looked at many so far, with the following comments:
iBank – nice interface, no support for classes
MoneyDance – supports tags, but weak custom reports
MoneyWell – no support for classes
SEE – no support for classes, but otherwise very attractive
YNAB – no support for classes, no custom reports (as I recall)
Fortora Fresh Finance – no support for classes
Liquid Ledger – no support for classes, no custom reports

None of the challengers comes to close to Quicken with respect to support for classes (i.e. custom reports based on categories and class). Quicken's custom reporting tools are unmatched, except possibly by SEE.
 
I think I have read or glanced over every post on this thread.
Some valuable information, some not so much. I am now going to try two
approaches:
- Crossover with Quicken 2011 (hope I can get a refund if it does not work well)
- Quicken Essentials, and just exporting to an Excel Spreadsheet for reports

Essentials seems to handle the mindless job of recording transactions OK,
as well as a monthly reconciliation. My guess is that 90% of current Quicken for Mac users do nothing else (the other 10% are filling up this thread).
Using Excel as a report generator may seem clunky, but Mac Excel is a cinch to be supported for a long time to come.

Any predictions on my chances for satisfaction from these two efforts?
 
saj777 said:
<SNIP>
(the other 10% are filling up this thread).
<snip>
Any predictions on my chances for satisfaction from these two efforts?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think the "other 10%" you referenced are what we would call "power users," those of us who want to wring every bit of functionality from our software, bending it to our will for the good of our financial health. :)

Predictions of satisfaction? I think if you're a Quicken for Mac 2007 user, Essentials is going to come up quite short. I've heard that they've patched up a few things in QE, but I have grave misgivings about its viability as a suitable replacement for QFM 2007.

I'd be interested in hearing your results w/Crossover, but that just sounds like a slippery slope that I'm not willing to try. I want Mac financial software to run on my Mac; I don't like hybrid solutions in this realm and I'm tired of the Mac being treated as a second-class, almost-ran system. If a company no longer cares to support my platform, I don't care to support that company anymore. :mad:

Please let us know how you fare - thanks! :D
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
While you may consider this some kind of massive security risk, some of us might prefer a smidgen of risk over complete and total non-functionality of said programs.
Click to expand...

It is not your risk to take. Apple provides the code and even though the warrantee on the software tries to tap dance away from any responsibility, it is Apple's code. So if something bad happens perhaps you won't sue Apple but there are others who will. With 10's of billions of cash there are ambulance cashing lawyers that circle Apple like buzzards.

So the entity taking a risk is Apple, the owner of the code, not you. If you want to sign a contract with Apple saying that you want to assume the costs on behalf of Apple for any suit brought by anybody over the issue of shipping known security compromised software o then you would be assuming the risk.

You are just trying to take a small subsection of the risk and dump the rest on Apple's lap (along with the support costs ). Don't be surprised when they turn you down.
 
Last edited:
deconstruct60 said:
It is not your risk to take. Apple provides the code and even though the warrantee on the software tries to tap dance away from any responsibility, it is Apple's code. So if something bad happens perhaps you won't sue Apple but there are others who will. With 10's of billions of cash there are ambulance cashing lawyers that circle Apple like buzzards.

So the entity taking a risk is Apple, the owner of the code, not you. If you want to sign a contract with Apple saying that you want to assume the costs on behalf of Apple for any suit brought by anybody over the issue of shipping known security compromised software o then you would be assuming the risk.

You are just trying to take a small subsection of the risk and dump the rest on Apple's lap (along with the support costs ). Don't be surprised when they turn you down.
Click to expand...

By your logic, I can sue Apple for a security issue in Tiger, Panther, even OS9, 8, 7, 6, etc. etc. to the beginning of the company. You seem to think they are responsible for security breaches even after they've essentially abandoned all support for the software. Apparently, you think "as-is" and "use at your own risk" warnings mean nothing legally, as well. And quite frankly, I don't think I've ever heard of someone suing Microsoft because they got a virus due to Microsoft's inability to plug every possible security hole in Windows. How much more so with Apple that has no viruses and hardly any malware of any kind. When Apple added Classic Mode to OSX, they didn't keep updating OS9 with security patches for goodness sake.... :rolleyes:

In short, I find your whole post absurd in terms of the ability to run older no-longer-supported software within a virtual environment.
 
deconstruct60 said:
It is not your risk to take...
Click to expand...

Apple is not legally liable for any damages due to software vulnerabilities.

The individual that discovers the software vulnerability is not even liable for any wrong doing performed with the vulnerability unless that action is taken directly by the researcher.

Security researchers sell exploits/vulnerabilities to various entities with no legal liability.

The liability is the sole responsibility of the individual that performs illegal actions with vulnerability.
 
Intuit Mac Horror Story!

YMark said:
Unfortunately, Intuit has failed Mac users.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with that. An Intuit salesman came to my house a few months ago and sold me a merchant account with 1 free year of Quickbooks- the guy said to "download it" from their website... Turns out that they didn't even have a Mac version available for download so I fought with tech support for 2 months until they finally told me to buy it for like $250...

Long story short, I never once got to use my merchant account and Intuit started billing me! So I cancelled, but then debt collectors started calling me! :eek: I had to fax them a copy of my contract to prove to them that they were the ones who defaulted on their agreement... The debt, if any, is owed to me for wasting 3 months of my time.

In the end, I signed up for Square and they sent me a free CC swiper for my iPhone and I couldn't be happier. :eek:


BAD INTUIT! BAD, BAD! :mad:
​
 
Last edited:
h4lp m3 said:
BAD INTUIT! BAD, BAD! :mad:
​
Click to expand...

LOL - What a great response - I love it!

To your point, and continuing in a similar fashion, here's what Intuit sent to me today regarding QuickBOOKS compatibility with Lion. With all that's gone before, I thought y'all might appreciate seeing this, too, reproduced as it was sent to me:

QuickBooks 2011 for Mac is now compatible with Lion with the R10 update we released this morning. If you already have QuickBooks 2011 for Mac, just install the R10 update when prompted. (Or go to the QuickBooks menu and choose “Check for Updates” to get the latest.)

QuickBooks 2010 for Mac and earlier
As we announced previously, QuickBooks 2010 for Mac and earlier versions are not officially supported on Lion. (You can read more about this at http://bit.ly/qyca5F.) Although QuickBooks 2010 for Mac and earlier versions may run on Mac OS X 10.7, some features may not run correctly. (You can see the known issues at http://bit.ly/o4JgUb)

If the features of Lion aren't a big deal for you and you don't want to upgrade your version of QuickBooks, then just stay with the version of Mac OS and QuickBooks you currently use. We can continue to help you with any problems you may run into.

If you must upgrade to Lion and don’t want to upgrade QuickBooks, you can continue running QuickBooks for Mac on a partition. You can learn more about setting up a partition at this article by Apple: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4722

If you want to run QuickBooks for Mac on Lion, you should upgrade to QuickBooks 2011 for Mac. That way if you do run into any problems, we can help you. You can find QuickBooks 2011 for Mac on our website at http://quickbooks.com/mac and at most major retailers.

We really appreciate your business and wish you happy accounting whether you choose to upgrade to Lion or stay with your current version of Mac OS X. And remember, we’re on Twitter or Facebook if you want to swing by.

Sincerely,

The QuickBooks for Mac Team​

One last Q: What's up with this "Little Square" stuff at Intuit's website? It seems like it's applied to the Mac section. Where did they get that name, what does it mean, and is it a slam on Mac users? After Intuit's shabby treatment of Mac users for the last ~5 years, I don't trust 'em. :mad:
 
Intuit's lack of support of the Mac version of Quicken is just opportunity for independent devs. There are so many great alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Apple—Intuit's Poor Sister

Intuit has long treated Mac users like the poor sister. I recently purchased Essentials and returned it two days later. It's a bare bones version of what I have. The best part of my experience was the "help" conversation I had with a rep who admitted he was in India.

We are running two iMacs and a Macbook. I may have to skip upgrading the laptop to Lion and put my copy of Quicken 2006 on it.

Quicken user since 1988. Mac user since 1993.
 
Last edited:
Ray38 said:
<SNIP
... my copy of Quicken 2006 on it.

Quicken user since 1988. Mac user since 1993.
Click to expand...

Just a quick FYI. Quicken 2007 was a really nice update from Quicken 2006. If you have a chance to get the later version, I'd recommend it (you might be able to download it for free now). Although I can't recall specific features now that I appreciated then, I do remember thinking that they did a great job upgrading the product.

Hey, at least you can enjoy the last real effort Intuit made! ;)
 
MorphingDragon said:
^^^

Apple could implement FreeBSD Jails in Mac OSX, and inside a jail have a PPC emulator and the old libraries. That way old insecure software could be run sandboxed, safely away form the Main OS. You would just need a secure way to transfer files to and from the sandbox.

(I say could because I'm not entirely sure how jails work)
Click to expand...

OS X already has chroot(8), the basis for Jails.

I was thinking to myself that I might possibly be able to get Rosetta running on Lion inside a chroot'ed environment, given being able to load enough dylibs/Frameworks from 10.6.7 into the right places in the chroot tree.

(I once managed to get Adobe CS3 working on an HFS+ case-sensitive filesystem; and I repaired an Apple software RAID volume that had been mangled going from a PowerPC/Panther laptop to an Intel/Tiger laptop by using a hex editor. Don't count me out :D )
 
coolspot18 said:
Is it me, or does Apple seem to break a lot of things during each release of OSX?
Click to expand...

Did you expect Rosetta to be supported indefinitely?
It's been 6 years since the switch, an eternity in computing terms, and pretty much every software package has moved to Intel.

Except Quicken, because Intuit can't write software.
If in 5 years they haven't been able to port Quicken to Intel, it means:

* Lots of it is written in PPC assembly
* It's probably 20-year old code, mostly unchanged since then.
* They have lost the documentation and the analisys documents for it
* They have been unable to rewrite it in some kind of portable language

= A bunch of 12 year olds would make a better software house.

Windows at least keeps applications more or less compatible between each release.
Click to expand...

Actually, pre-XP applications don't work that well in Vista and 7.
8 will be worse.

A good thing, because it means that some 20 year old legacy code has been dumped.

You trade backward compatibility for a sluggish, intricate and crippled system.
 
For an app as popular and well used as Quicken for Mac has been, you would think they would continue the legacy and keep releasing newer versions... Quicken 2011 for Mac would have been Intel and this thread would be about squashing bugs, not trying to get the app to run in a newer version of OS X.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back