$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Brady Hamilto » Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:00:00



Sorry if this has been brought up before, but
a search through Dejanews didn't give me a
definitive answer.

Money98 is absolutely NOT year 2000 compliant.

In my Lifetime Forecast my retirement goes from
(hypethetical figures) $50,500 on 12/31/99 to
$50,100 on 12/31/00, then to $58,000 on 12/31/01.

Clearly a problem handling the transition from
99 to 00.

Has this been brought up before, and if so, has
Microsoft offered a solution?

Thanks,

Brady

 
 
 

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Richard Bollar, MV » Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:00:00


I can't duplicate what you're seeing here.  Try creating the scenario in a
blank file and then let us know how we can enter what you did, so we can see
exactly what is causing the issue.

--
Have a question on using Microsoft Money?  Visit the Unofficial Microsoft
Money FAQ at http://www.swizzle.com/msmoney/msmoney.htm


>Sorry if this has been brought up before, but
>a search through Dejanews didn't give me a
>definitive answer.

>Money98 is absolutely NOT year 2000 compliant.

>In my Lifetime Forecast my retirement goes from
>(hypethetical figures) $50,500 on 12/31/99 to
>$50,100 on 12/31/00, then to $58,000 on 12/31/01.

>Clearly a problem handling the transition from
>99 to 00.

>Has this been brought up before, and if so, has
>Microsoft offered a solution?

>Thanks,

>Brady


 
 
 

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Bruce A. Chastai » Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Brady,

FWIW, I hadn't noticed it before (shame on me), but I also have a 2000
problem here.  It might explain some of the differences I've seen between
the Money98 Long Term Forecaster and other programs working with the same
numbers.

Please note that I have NO Goals or Events scheduled for 2000 or several
years in either direction.  This is my annual Living Expenses as detailed by
the forecaster:

1998  21,356
1999  21,378
2000  25,916
2001  23,784
2002  21,414
2003  21,378

Since nothing happens to me or my plan in the year 2000, I can't begin to
imaging why my expenses would suddenly peak like that.  I can change the
numbers slightly by fooling around with various settings, but regardless of
what tried, the peaks at 2000 and 2001 always remain.

Bruce.


>Sorry if this has been brought up before, but
>a search through Dejanews didn't give me a
>definitive answer.

>Money98 is absolutely NOT year 2000 compliant.

>In my Lifetime Forecast my retirement goes from
>(hypethetical figures) $50,500 on 12/31/99 to
>$50,100 on 12/31/00, then to $58,000 on 12/31/01.

>Clearly a problem handling the transition from
>99 to 00.

>Has this been brought up before, and if so, has
>Microsoft offered a solution?

>Thanks,

>Brady

 
 
 

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Porter Humphre » Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:00:00


I doubt that it's a Y2K problem. It must have to do with one or more of
the many inputs into the lifetime forecast, some (but not all) of which
are detailed at
http://www.microsoft.com/money/users/forecast.htm. I don't know what
the reason could be, but my own forecast, which is shown in today's
dollars with zero inflation, shows no change whatever in living expenses
from 1999 to 2002.

The problem lies with the complexity of the forecast rules, not with
Y2K.
--
Porter Humphrey.


> Brady,

> FWIW, I hadn't noticed it before (shame on me), but I also have a 2000
> problem here.  It might explain some of the differences I've seen between
> the Money98 Long Term Forecaster and other programs working with the same
> numbers.

> Please note that I have NO Goals or Events scheduled for 2000 or several
> years in either direction.  This is my annual Living Expenses as detailed by
> the forecaster:

> 1998  21,356
> 1999  21,378
> 2000  25,916
> 2001  23,784
> 2002  21,414
> 2003  21,378

> Since nothing happens to me or my plan in the year 2000, I can't begin to
> imaging why my expenses would suddenly peak like that.  I can change the
> numbers slightly by fooling around with various settings, but regardless of
> what tried, the peaks at 2000 and 2001 always remain.

> Bruce.


> >Sorry if this has been brought up before, but
> >a search through Dejanews didn't give me a
> >definitive answer.

> >Money98 is absolutely NOT year 2000 compliant.

> >In my Lifetime Forecast my retirement goes from
> >(hypethetical figures) $50,500 on 12/31/99 to
> >$50,100 on 12/31/00, then to $58,000 on 12/31/01.

> >Clearly a problem handling the transition from
> >99 to 00.

> >Has this been brought up before, and if so, has
> >Microsoft offered a solution?

> >Thanks,

> >Brady

 
 
 

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Bruce Chastai » Sat, 06 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Porter,

I always appreciate hearing your take on this issues, but unless you can
propose a more detailed theory, I still think the Y2K theory seems much more
likely and reasonable at this point.

Since nothing happens for me in the years 2000 and 2001, the peak in
expenses seem to be in error.  Even if it turns out to be a bug unrelated to
a classic Y2K bug, and just happens to*up my forecast for those 2
years, it's still appears to be a bug.

However, it also interesting coincidence that I found it only after someone
else reported having trouble with the forecaster around 2000.

I agree that the forecast rules are quite complex, but that only means bugs
will be that much harder to reproduce, as we've all discovered.

I spent quite a bit of time experimenting last night, but nothing I tried
moved those expense peaks.  If I discover anything else that might explain
the behavior, I'll post it.

Bruce.


>I doubt that it's a Y2K problem. It must have to do with one or more of
>the many inputs into the lifetime forecast, some (but not all) of which
>are detailed at
>http://www.veryComputer.com/'t know what
>the reason could be, but my own forecast, which is shown in today's
>dollars with zero inflation, shows no change whatever in living expenses
>from 1999 to 2002.

>The problem lies with the complexity of the forecast rules, not with
>Y2K.
>--
>Porter Humphrey.

 
 
 

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Richard Bollar, MV » Sat, 06 Jun 1998 04:00:00


It might be easier to experiment with it if you try in a new file.  That
way, as you add complexity to the plan, you will be able to see exactly what
causes the blip to happen (and you won't have to mess with your own plan).

It will also be easier for us to duplicate it, in the event that you do find
what is causing the problem.

--
Have a question on using Microsoft Money?  Visit the Unofficial Microsoft
Money FAQ at http://www.veryComputer.com/


>Porter,

>I always appreciate hearing your take on this issues, but unless you can
>propose a more detailed theory, I still think the Y2K theory seems much
more
>likely and reasonable at this point.

>Since nothing happens for me in the years 2000 and 2001, the peak in
>expenses seem to be in error.  Even if it turns out to be a bug unrelated
to
>a classic Y2K bug, and just happens to*up my forecast for those 2
>years, it's still appears to be a bug.

>However, it also interesting coincidence that I found it only after someone
>else reported having trouble with the forecaster around 2000.

>I agree that the forecast rules are quite complex, but that only means bugs
>will be that much harder to reproduce, as we've all discovered.

>I spent quite a bit of time experimenting last night, but nothing I tried
>moved those expense peaks.  If I discover anything else that might explain
>the behavior, I'll post it.

>Bruce.


>>I doubt that it's a Y2K problem. It must have to do with one or more of
>>the many inputs into the lifetime forecast, some (but not all) of which
>>are detailed at
>>http://www.veryComputer.com/'t know what
>>the reason could be, but my own forecast, which is shown in today's
>>dollars with zero inflation, shows no change whatever in living expenses
>>from 1999 to 2002.

>>The problem lies with the complexity of the forecast rules, not with
>>Y2K.
>>--
>>Porter Humphrey.

 
 
 

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Bruce Chastai » Sat, 06 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Richard,

That's one of the things I'm trying, but so far no luck.  There's nearly an
infinite combination of things that might be causing it, so while it's
frustrating, it also doesn't really surprise me that duplicating it is
proving to be difficult.

And unfortunately, I don't have as much patience for $98 problems as I used
to .....

Bruce.


>It might be easier to experiment with it if you try in a new file.  That
>way, as you add complexity to the plan, you will be able to see exactly
what
>causes the blip to happen (and you won't have to mess with your own plan).

>It will also be easier for us to duplicate it, in the event that you do
find
>what is causing the problem.

>--
>Have a question on using Microsoft Money?  Visit the Unofficial Microsoft
>Money FAQ at http://www.swizzle.com/msmoney/msmoney.htm

 
 
 

$98 2000 Compliant - Not!

Post by Richard Bollar, MV » Sat, 06 Jun 1998 04:00:00


I had guessed that it would be a tough one to ferret out.  I hope you'll be
able to keep at it.

--
Have a question on using Microsoft Money?  Visit the Unofficial Microsoft
Money FAQ at http://www.swizzle.com/msmoney/msmoney.htm


>Richard,

>That's one of the things I'm trying, but so far no luck.  There's nearly an
>infinite combination of things that might be causing it, so while it's
>frustrating, it also doesn't really surprise me that duplicating it is
>proving to be difficult.

>And unfortunately, I don't have as much patience for $98 problems as I used
>to .....

>Bruce.


>>It might be easier to experiment with it if you try in a new file.  That
>>way, as you add complexity to the plan, you will be able to see exactly
>what
>>causes the blip to happen (and you won't have to mess with your own plan).

>>It will also be easier for us to duplicate it, in the event that you do
>find
>>what is causing the problem.

>>--
>>Have a question on using Microsoft Money?  Visit the Unofficial Microsoft
>>Money FAQ at http://www.swizzle.com/msmoney/msmoney.htm

 
 
 

1. $98 trial version incompatible with CA $98?

I have been using the trial version of Money 98 that came with my
Windows 98 CD.  When I recently installed the Canadian version of
Basic Money 98, it gives me an error message saying it can't open the
*.mny files created in the trial version because the two versions are
incompatible.  Any hints on how to fix this?  

Thanks,

http://www.mcbridebc.com/luthier

2. Key-in special symbol in the cell in Excel

3. $98 US trial -> $98 UK upgrade problem

4. info please

5. Kimberly, Online Banking Still Hangs,$98 Not Responding

6. I have found Acer Scanner Driver!

7. Headlines on the Web Not Updating ($98)

8. MathCad 6.0/Win32s/FP17

9. Money97 - Year 2000 compliant?

10. $98 Investment Profit Tracking

11. $98 Commisions

12. Bank listed on online bank list, but doesn't show up in $98

13. $98 Online Banking