If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
The 2007 version of Quicken no longer list Windows 98SE as a supported
OS. Has anyone installed Quicken 2007 on a Windows 98SE machine? -- JD.. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
If Quicken says it's unsupported, I'd take their word for it. If anything
goes wrong they won't help you fix the problem - thus the term "unsupported". -- Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to. * My website, such as it is ... http://rgharper.mvps.org/ * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm "JD" wrote in message ... The 2007 version of Quicken no longer list Windows 98SE as a supported OS. Has anyone installed Quicken 2007 on a Windows 98SE machine? -- JD.. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
On 04-Nov-06 16:51, Richard G. Harper wrote:
If Quicken says it's unsupported, I'd take their word for it. If anything goes wrong they won't help you fix the problem - thus the term "unsupported". Honestly, they've never helped me fix a problem in the past. I have software for my digital camera that installed on 98 SE but after an "update" a window flashed by that said the software was not for 98SE but it still works? After a little more research, I found a post in another newsgroup that said Quicken 2007 would not even install on 98SE. Once it recognizes the OS as 98SE it shuts down the install. Have you every considered bottom posting to a reply? With your signature as it is, everything after it doesn't transfer to my reply to your post. -- JD.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
No problem here. Perhaps it is more accurately a flaw in your own reader
that is cutting off everything after the sig. Top-posting is perfectly acceptable. -- Gary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm "JD" wrote in message ... On 04-Nov-06 16:51, Richard G. Harper wrote: Have you every considered bottom posting to a reply? With your signature as it is, everything after it doesn't transfer to my reply to your post. -- JD.. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
On 04-Nov-06 18:22, Gary S. Terhune wrote:
No problem here. Perhaps it is more accurately a flaw in your own reader that is cutting off everything after the sig. Top-posting is perfectly acceptable. Didn't mean to step on any body's toes! My understanding is everything after the signature delimiter is supposed to drop off so there aren't multiple signatures? Most the newsgroups I post in request that people either bottom post or reply in-line. I don't come to this newsgroup very often so I'm not familiar how it works. Is it unacceptable for me to continue to bottom post? -- JD.. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
JD wrote:
On 04-Nov-06 18:22, Gary S. Terhune wrote: No problem here. Perhaps it is more accurately a flaw in your own reader that is cutting off everything after the sig. Top-posting is perfectly acceptable. Didn't mean to step on any body's toes! My understanding is everything after the signature delimiter is supposed to drop off so there aren't multiple signatures? Most the newsgroups I post in request that people either bottom post or reply in-line. I don't come to this newsgroup very often so I'm not familiar how it works. Is it unacceptable for me to continue to bottom post? Bottom posting makes more sense to me. If there is a continuing exchange of articles in a thread, top posting makes it VERY hard to figure out the sequence of the quotes. There ARE some occasions when earlier articles aren't available, and quotes sometimes help explain the context. That doesn't mean you always have to quote ALL of every prior article in the thread though. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
Not stepping on any toes, not exactly, s.
Top-posting, bottom-posting, inline posting, all are acceptable. To insist upon one over the other is elitist. I understand that many users will claim that it's some kind of "rule". It isn't. Personally, I find both bottom-posting and inline posting to be frequently bothersome. Bottom-posting because I often have to scroll past a *lot* of content just to see a one-line or one-paragraph response. With inline, it can quickly become a real mess trying to understand a conversation that has been replied to a few times. Examples of conversations that are nigh impossible to read for that reason abound in these newsgroups. Proponents of bottom and inline posting will insist that it's more "natural", that it presents the info in proper order, etc., But most of us have already read the conversation to that point and only need the new content. The included content is only there for reference, in case the person hasn't read the previous posts. To cause additional work for those who are already up to date, instead of presenting the new content at the top, seems rather inconsiderate to me. What seems to be the case is that you are either using an optional setting or your newsreader is hard-wired to do as you describe. If everyone bottom-posted or posted inline, the technique would make sense, I suppose. All I was (and am) saying is that it is your setting or built-in function that is causing the "problem" you're having, not the top-posting. -- Gary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm "JD" wrote in message ... On 04-Nov-06 18:22, Gary S. Terhune wrote: No problem here. Perhaps it is more accurately a flaw in your own reader that is cutting off everything after the sig. Top-posting is perfectly acceptable. Didn't mean to step on any body's toes! My understanding is everything after the signature delimiter is supposed to drop off so there aren't multiple signatures? Most the newsgroups I post in request that people either bottom post or reply in-line. I don't come to this newsgroup very often so I'm not familiar how it works. Is it unacceptable for me to continue to bottom post? -- JD.. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
If everyone top-posted, it wouldn't be at all difficult to figure out the
sequence. Nor is it really all that difficult to figure out when there is mixed bottom and top-posting. The real difficulty comes when there are a sequence of inline postings. Proper trimming is what really determines the readability of any of these styles. -- Gary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm "RobertVA" wrote in message ... JD wrote: On 04-Nov-06 18:22, Gary S. Terhune wrote: No problem here. Perhaps it is more accurately a flaw in your own reader that is cutting off everything after the sig. Top-posting is perfectly acceptable. Didn't mean to step on any body's toes! My understanding is everything after the signature delimiter is supposed to drop off so there aren't multiple signatures? Most the newsgroups I post in request that people either bottom post or reply in-line. I don't come to this newsgroup very often so I'm not familiar how it works. Is it unacceptable for me to continue to bottom post? Bottom posting makes more sense to me. If there is a continuing exchange of articles in a thread, top posting makes it VERY hard to figure out the sequence of the quotes. There ARE some occasions when earlier articles aren't available, and quotes sometimes help explain the context. That doesn't mean you always have to quote ALL of every prior article in the thread though. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
"Gary S. Terhune" wrote: Personally, I find both bottom-posting and inline posting to be frequently bothersome. Bottom-posting because I often have to scroll past a *lot* of content just to see a one-line or one-paragraph response. Precisely, and in Agent it prevents you from using keystrokes to quickly flick through postings. I don't understand why people see the need to repeat entire threads in every reply, anyway. What is the point of that? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quicken2007 and Windows 98SE
There is a benefit to we regulars who are scanning through threads for ones
for which we might have some potentially helpful advice, or which discuss tech issues that we are interested in tracking. Because we often attend to *many* groups, and some of those groups are HUGE, we maintain a short date limit -- 15 to 30 days, or less. Thus, when we only happen upon a group every week or two, we can often miss the early days of a thread, particularly where the issue is a particularly gnarly one, or one that simply requires days to deal with. Without the early posts of a thread, we're usually working in the dark, lacking in many details, pretty much useless to the discussion. Even if the entire thread is available, if you have to read back through the thread it's a PITA to scroll lots of repetitive inline and bottom posts to gather little bits of new data, when scrolling through just one post would provide the same info *if* the previous content still remained. Of course, if top-posting were the norm, we'd pretty much only have to read the thread from the beginning, and it would be a relatively painless process. -- Gary S. Terhune MS MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm "Ian" wrote in message ... "Gary S. Terhune" wrote: Personally, I find both bottom-posting and inline posting to be frequently bothersome. Bottom-posting because I often have to scroll past a *lot* of content just to see a one-line or one-paragraph response. Precisely, and in Agent it prevents you from using keystrokes to quickly flick through postings. I don't understand why people see the need to repeat entire threads in every reply, anyway. What is the point of that? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|