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

[themadrhino]

I am going with Moneydance

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]

what about GnuCash?

Has anyone used GnuCash? 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]

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]

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

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'.

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.

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]

Not the point, I think

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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 ?

 

[MorphingDragon]

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 ?

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]

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]

A

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]

iBank

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

what's your point?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.)