Which version of Quicken are you using? Q may have been intended for 4-5 MB 15 years ago, but they shouldn't have a problem with bigger files now (IMHO, of course).

I have learned from the folks at Quicken support, to use the File Validate feature periodically, to repair corrupt data files. But now, even if I run File Validate every day, it still reports 50 to 100 damaged data blocks EVERY TIME. Does it never repair them? I have set the BACKUP option to create a backup file every time I exit. For instance, we have noticed that when you convert your existing file to Quicken 2002, a series of 13 investment income categories are automatically added to your file. During the conversion, the corrupted files were not recognized or copied, which can result in missing categories, transactions, or memorized reports.

Maybe they use a crappy technique to access transactions, e.g., always starting at the first one & reading until they get to the one you want or the end of the file? FWIW, my personal & retirement accounts are both just under 4 MB. I trim my personal file each 01 Jan to drop 2 years ago. The retirement accounts are cumulative from day one. Jay Levitt 3.2.03.

In article, says. >Q may have been intended for 4-5 MB 15 years ago, but they shouldn't >have a problem with bigger files now (IMHO, of course). Maybe they use a >crappy technique to access transactions, e.g., always starting at the >first one & reading until they get to the one you want or the end of the >file? If you watch Quicken with Filemon from, you can see that this is indeed the case sometimes - it scans through the entire file on occasion, though seemingly not on every single transaction.

I haven't spent enough time with it to figure out the pattern, not that knowing it would help any. -- Jay Levitt Wellesley, MA Hi! Movie Studio Platinum 13 0 Serial Number. Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em Where are we going? Why am I in this handbasket?

Greenberg 3.2.03. The copy function within Quicken copies whatever you specify (I choose everything) and also removes dead space (deleted records or other data whose file space has not been reused) thus making the resulting file _smaller_. That is why I do it - to reduce file size and presumably also improve performance. This new file has a new name or location.

You can choose to have Quicken use the new file by its new name/location if you like, but there are several other ways to handle this. I usually tell Quicken to continue using the old version, then close Quicken. I then rename the old file to another name (for backup purposes in case something goes wrong) and then rename the new copy to the original name using file manager (Windows Explorer).

That makes it easier to know which file is the current one in use. You might be able to come up with a more convenient strategy.

Just remember that file operations outside of Quicken must be applied to several files. Opel Globaltis V25 Download Youtube. What Quicken calls a 'file' is actually several files with the same name but different extensions. Dick Ballard On Tue, 04 Feb 2003 06:13:39 GMT, 'Joseph J. Greenberg' wrote: >so just to follow up. You do a quicken copy of all data (which by the way >increases the file size a bit), and then go on using the copy?

Do you rename >the copy back to the original name? >>'Dick Ballard' wrote in message >news:5tjt3vsujhhn0iakacimkoij36g9lc1ooi@4ax.com. >>I have 14 years worth of data. My QDF is 5458kb and QEL is 1883kb. I >>occasionally use the Quicken Copy function to clear dead wood (once or >>twice a year). I too would resist archiving anything because I like >>having all that history readily available. The only 'corruption' I've >>experienced is occasional loss of addresses on some memorized >>transactions.

But that has happened even when the file size was much >>smaller. >>>>Dick Ballard >>>>>>>>On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:53:51 GMT, 'Joseph J. Greenberg' >>wrote: >>>>>What is the largest working (non-corrupted) data file people are working >>>with? I have a 16MB one and tech support was trying to get me to archive >>>most of it, 'since Quicken wasn't intended for data files more than like >4 >>>or 5 megs'. I like being able to run reports over a long period of time, >so >>>I'm resisting?

Any thoughts? White 4.2.03. I've been using Quicken since 1991. My Quicken fileset now totals over 15 MB, including over 12 MB in the QDF file. My Quicken seems as fast as back in '91 when I first started.

Of course, I've upgraded everything - Quicken, the hardware it runs on, and the Windows operating system - continually over the past dozen years. I'm currently running Quicken 2000 Deluxe on Windows XP Pro on a year-old AMD XP2000+ system, including over 150 GB of disk space on some pretty fast hard drives. In the early-to-middle years, there were frequent problems with data corruption in Quicken (and other) files. Hard drives and other components have become so much more reliable, though, that I haven't had any data corruption problems in 3 years or more. I keep my Quicken files backed up (several copies on the hard drives, plus CD-RW), but have not tried to 'slim down' the working copy. If I need to look up what I paid for a new memory chip back in '93, I just open my credit card Register, put the cursor in the Memo box, press Ctrl+F and tell it to Find all mentions of 'memory' - within 10 seconds, I have onscreen a report of all my memory purchases in the past dozen years.

This topic comes up regularly, Joseph - a couple of times a year. Intuit has often been quoted as blaming file size for slow performance, but there have been MANY reports like mine from users who are having no such problems with much larger Quicken filesets. White, CPA (Retired - no longer licensed to practice) San Marcos, TX 'Joseph J. Greenberg' wrote in message news:3Vy%9.61661$HG.11508437@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net.

White 4.2.03. In article, says. >>They are telling you to expect catastrophic crashes. I reached 32 MB with H&B 2000 before I had to give up and divide it. Along the way up, I had 3 or 4 instances of corruption, when the file would crash Quicken when opening. File-Copy from the last prior backup corrected those instances, but finally failed to help the last time. My experience was that restoring backup and adding the last few records would blow up again at same point, but File-Copy first, and then add was OK.

That suggests cause was prior corruption instead of size, but I was unable to get past 32 MB. I'm back up to 14MB now, uneventful so far. An occasional Copy every few months is probably a good corrective thing to do. It may lose a bit of corrupted data, but better that way than a crash. Be sure to keep multiple sets of very frequent backup data when skating on the edge.

Standard backup rotation practices, only overwrite the one oldest of them each time so you have staggered history levels available. Catastrophe can occur at any time, always at the worse time. Quicken is very silent about the limits of their database. I would much prefer to have the one large file containing all records so that reports have much meaning, but there came a time that was no longer possible for me. The first initial start suffered a very few seconds delay when the file was so large, but routine operation afterward did not seem much affected. -- Wayne 'A few scanning tips' Spoking 4.2.03. For the renaming, if you can use DOS, or a DOS window, you can rename the whole batch.

The line command will be 'ren'. Eg: ren myfile.* myfile2.* will rename all files named myfile.qdf, myfile.qel, etc. To myfile2.qdf, etc.

The wild card (*) tells it to reuse the original ending. I don't know if it will 'respect' long file names. I imagine not. Handy little command.

Dick Ballard posted. >The copy function within Quicken copies whatever you specify (I choose >everything) and also removes dead space (deleted records or other data >whose file space has not been reused) thus making the resulting file >_smaller_. That is why I do it - to reduce file size and presumably >also improve performance. >>This new file has a new name or location. You can choose to have >Quicken use the new file by its new name/location if you like, but >there are several other ways to handle this. >>I usually tell Quicken to continue using the old version, then close >Quicken.

I then rename the old file to another name (for backup >purposes in case something goes wrong) and then rename the new copy to >the original name using file manager (Windows Explorer). That makes it >easier to know which file is the current one in use. >>You might be able to come up with a more convenient strategy.

Just >remember that file operations outside of Quicken must be applied to >several files. What Quicken calls a 'file' is actually several files >with the same name but different extensions. >>Dick Ballard >>-- Spoking _ _ Alan 4.2.03. My file is about 12 mg and I have not had any trouble although I do run file copy about once a year and run validate perhaps 2 - 3 times per year.

I do worry that one day I will have trouble - I have 5 years of data - but I think I will try to go one more year then archive perhaps the oldest 2 years in one file. Alan 'Liam Devlin' wrote in message news:3E3F17@optonline.NOSPAM.net.

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003 Han Broekman 5.2.03. Spoking wrote in: >For the renaming, if you can use DOS, or a DOS window, you can rename >the whole batch. >>The line command will be 'ren'.

>Eg: >ren myfile.* myfile2.* >will rename all files named myfile.qdf, myfile.qel, etc. To >myfile2.qdf, etc. The wild card (*) tells it to reuse the original >ending.

I don't know if it will 'respect' long file names. I imagine >not. >>Handy little command.

>>Fine suggestion. But, I would add that it may be bets to keep Quicken file names to 7dot3 (not even 8).

Quicken may not handle names longer than 8 characters well, and sure adds or substitutes the 8th character with a number when it makes automatic backups. I suggest feb03 etc for filenames. That leaves 2 additional characters for different people/business.

-- Best regards Han Broekman email address is invalid R. White 5.2.03. Good suggestion - but I don't like using a digit as the last character, such as feb03. The automatic backups then become feb031, feb032, etc.

(And myfile2.qdf will become myfile21.qdf.) When I used such a system, briefly, several years ago, I got pretty confused.;>{ I'm not sure how Quicken handles longer names, but DOS would convert february.qdf to februa~1.qdf, februa~2.qdf, etc. And february03.qdf could become something REALLY confusing! Keep 'em short - and don't end 'em with a numeral.; wrote in message news:Xns931ikkezelf@199.45.49.11. Rick Hess 5.2.03. Wayne Fulton wrote in message news.

>>They are telling you to expect catastrophic crashes. >>I reached 32 MB with H&B 2000 before I had to give up and divide it. Along >the way up, I had 3 or 4 instances of corruption, when the file would crash >Quicken when opening.

That's discouraging. Mine is 20.4MB (Q2002 deluxe) and I was hoping to never have to divide it.

I'm having no detectable problems that I know of. >An occasional Copy every few months is probably a good corrective thing to >do.

It may lose a bit of corrupted data, but better that way than a crash. I have found that my file INCREASES in size fith a FILE-COPY. I do this once or twice a year. >Be sure to keep multiple sets of very frequent backup data when skating on >the edge. Standard backup rotation practices, only overwrite the one oldest >of them each time so you have staggered history levels available. >Catastrophe can occur at any time, always at the worse time.

Excellent advice. Rick Hess New Orleans Victor Roberts 5.2.03. On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 08:43:23 -0600, 'R. White' wrote: >Hi, Han. >>Good suggestion - but I don't like using a digit as the last character, such >as feb03. The automatic backups then become feb031, feb032, etc.

(And >myfile2.qdf will become myfile21.qdf.) When I used such a system, briefly, >several years ago, I got pretty confused.;>{ >>I'm not sure how Quicken handles longer names, but DOS would convert >february.qdf to februa~1.qdf, februa~2.qdf, etc. And february03.qdf could >become something REALLY confusing! >>Keep 'em short - and don't end 'em with a numeral. On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:53:16 GMT, Liam Devlin wrote: >Victor Roberts wrote: >>I know one reason for this NG is to solve current problems NOW, but >>what about the bigger picture. Windows has had long file name >>capability for about 7 or 8 years.

Intuit has sold us Quicken >>'updates' for each of these 7 or 8 years. Isn't it about time they >>replace the old 16-bit DOS-based code in their products with 32-bit >>Windows code so their products can properly work with long file names? >>Yes, it is; but managers are loathe to diddle running code, so don't get >your hopes up. I agree that if it is not broken it should not be fixed. But, is it acceptable in 2003 to have multiple program platforms, QB and Quicken, that are not reliable if used with file names longer than 8 characters? In view of current expectations, is this 'running' code when used in the 'commercial, for sale' sense? -- Vic Roberts Han Broekman 6.2.03.

Victor Roberts wrote in: >>I agree that if it is not broken it should not be fixed. But, is it >acceptable in 2003 to have multiple program platforms, QB and Quicken, >that are not reliable if used with file names longer than 8 >characters? In view of current expectations, is this 'running' code >when used in the 'commercial, for sale' sense? >I see a beta (sorry, make that alpha) testing opportunity for you Vic! -- Best regards Han Broekman email address is invalid Victor Roberts 6.2.03.

Wrote: >My is 2.6 GB. I have some slow downs once in a while, if I leave it up too often, it freezes, but just relaunching it fixes it. Size doesn't always matter.:) The problem is that Quicken allows attachments to transactions. Those attachments can be quite large if they are images or photos of receipts. Since Intuit went to a single file container (qdata.qdf), it's not very transparent as to what is causing the file size growth. What's more problematic are the number of records. We don't know what the internal pointer sizes are, so we don't know how many records of each type will exceed the limit.

You can see those when you view the data validation report. On Sat, 3 Sep 2016 05:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Don in San Antonio wrote: >On Monday, February 3, 2003 at 12:53:51 PM UTC-6, Joseph J. Greenberg wrote: >>What is the largest working (non-corrupted) data file people are working >>with? I have a 16MB one and tech support was trying to get me to archive >>most of it, 'since Quicken wasn't intended for data files more than like 4 >>or 5 megs'. I like being able to run reports over a long period of time, so >>I'm resisting? Any thoughts? >>My data file is 111,580KB with transactions starting in January of 1993.

There is no noticeable slowdown in loading the file or entering transactions. I have 6279 transactions in my primary checking account. Investments are primarily mutual funds in 10 different accounts.

My current checking account started in April 1993, so just out of curiosity, I checked to see how many transactions I had in it. It's 6374, almost the same as yours. But the data file is about 20 times your size, probably because I scan most documents.

On Monday, February 3, 2003 at 1:53:51 PM UTC-5, Joseph J. Greenberg wrote: >What is the largest working (non-corrupted) data file people are working >with? I have a 16MB one and tech support was trying to get me to archive >most of it, 'since Quicken wasn't intended for data files more than like 4 >or 5 megs'. I like being able to run reports over a long period of time, so >I'm resisting? Any thoughts?

I started as well in 1993 (after initially using Simply Money from Computer Associates for a while) but suffered a catastrophic data loss in 2003 and had to start over (back-ups are now redundant x2!). Since August 1, 2003, I have 4775 checking account transactions and a 160,400KB data file. My first attempt at computerized book keeping was in 1982 on a TI-99/4 with a cassette tape recorder. My next move in 1986 was to an IBM clone and a program called Managing Your Money by Andrew Tobias.

It was from this program that I moved to Quicken. I ran Managing Your Money and Quicken in parallel for a year or so and finally switched entirely to Quicken in 1993. I liked Quicken better than MYM because it didn't require a new file be created at the beginning of each year.

I've never had a corrupted file in Quicken except for one time when I intentionally deleted my OFX and OFXOld files. My data file doubled in size and the program continued to save backups for a month or so. Then all of the sudden my data file would indicate data corruption upon opening the Quicken program. Then much to my dismay I discovered the backups would not load either. I worked my way out of this mess by creating a copy of the reportedly corrupt file.

To squeeze back onto topic - the new copied data file was reduced in size to half the corrupted data file. Lesson learned - don't delete files unless you know what your doing and if you do delete files and your Quicken data file suddenly doubles in size you need to take immediate action.

Just downloaded MoneyDance and imported my Quicken files. 5 account balances were incorrect by quite a lot. I double checked this to make sure and then even downloaded another app SEE Finance to compare, but it had all the balances correct. I would love to choose MoneyDance as it has a great interface, but I can not trust it, if it still can not do an important process like this accurately. Accuracy is the only thing that matters in accounting software! Are you aware of these problems with import? My accounts are big but not complicated (or corrupted) so I can not believe that I am the only one with this problem.