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..

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..

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..

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..

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..

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.

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..