> >>My interest really was to find out the state of the online banking
> >>nowadays. I have been a CF user and have been relatively happy
> >>with their service and delivery times. The additional capabilities
> >>that QOL gives was tempting enough for me to try (I am running them
> >>both in parallel right now). My question is still: have users been
> >>satisfied with the service? Will it cause me more headaches NOW, in
> >>which case I can switch later this year when they get their act
> >>Any other comments?
> >I've found Quicken's on-line banking & bill payment to be very good.
> >I use it regularly. The recent upgrade make a good product better.
> >Jonathan Rushdoony
> Sorry, but I have to disagree on this one. I just started using
> on-line payment (not electronic banking) and it's HORRIBLE HORRIBLE
> HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE
> The interface is NOT only poor, but it's not appropriately integrated
> Quicken's other features. In short, here are my complaints:
> * There is not way to place a comment line on a check. (You can enter
> "comment" in the register of a check, but the comment does not appear
> anywhere on the check or in the "check view.")
> * Also, the area for account numbers is extremely short. I haven't run
> of space, but I haven't entered all of my accounts either. If this
> were longer, it might be a place to add comments..... unfortunately,
> can't be done without entering a separate area of the program (Add
> Payees) and adding the comment.... and then you wouldn't be able to
> account number/comments because they don't appear in your register
> * Setting up an on-line payee is totally separate from the QuickFill
> transactions that many of us have already entered in Quicken (in other
> words, start all over and retype ALL the addresses.)
> * There is no reasonable way to pay two different checks to the same
> For example, my wife and I have separate accounts at the local medical
> clinic. To keep our records clear, we write two different checks with
> different account numbers. That can't be done in Quicken -- it only
> the name of the payee, the address and the account number. Even if it
> allow us to set up two payees with the same name, there would be no
> tell them apart in the list.
> * The interface is buggy. When I was scheduling upcoming transactions,
> on-line payment feature RETROACTIVELY made changed hand-written checks
> on-line payments and would not let me correct them. In other words,
> from a month before showed up as electronic payments -- when I tried
> them, it kept saying "You cannot change this transaction because it
> already been transmitted." I knew that was wrong because the check was
> dated BEFORE I had signed up for on-line payment.
> * Quicken automatically dates your check for the day that it estimates
> the payee will receive it. What the hell is the deal with that????????
> don't particularly care about Intuit's educated guess -- I want the
> dated the day I enter it. (No way to turn off this goofy feature.)
> I really like Quicken. I've been using it for years and I guess I'd
> consider myself a "power user." Sadly, Intuit didn't put the necessary
> resources or thought into making on-line payments an effective tool --
> interface is difficult to use and doesn't fit with the standard
> tools and controls.
> Some people never see the light,
> Til it shines through bullet holes.
> For more 80s trivia, visit my New Wave 80s Page
> at http://www.veryComputer.com/~ctobola/newwave.html
I'm just ready to decide whether I am going to purchase Quicken 97 or
Are you using Quicken 97 (aka version 6)? I have downloaded both trial
versions and really like both. Quicken seems to have a few more
features, but I'm not sure if I will use them though.
Unfortunately the online banking and bill paying is not available in the
trial versions so I can't compare this very important feature. Any help
you or others can provide in choosing between these 2 products in
regards to the online features would be much appreciated.