Archiving Quicken files-- any purpose

[Ray]

a long time Quicken user --just some personal accounts... nothing elaborate...

.. just wanted to know what is the purpose of Archiving Quicken Data files...
I backup on a weekly basis or when needed.. can't see the need for it... am I
missing something.. thanx

 

[Han]

a long time Quicken user --just some personal accounts... nothing
elaborate...

.. just wanted to know what is the purpose of Archiving Quicken Data
files...
I backup on a weekly basis or when needed.. can't see the need for
it... am I missing something.. thanx

You mean the year-end thing? That is so you (sort of only, I believe)
discard old data into the year-end archive, and go on with only the more
recent data.

At least that's what I think. I've never used it, because I want to be
able to go back and see what happened in 1999.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Ray.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far away...

I was an accountant. I kept books. BIG books! With pen and ink (remember
those?). Each year's books for one company might weigh 10 pounds. A set of
books for 20 years might outweigh me! To keep the physical labor of
handling those books manageable, we would "close" the books each year-end.
Then we would open a new, slimmer set of books for the new year. If we
needed to look back in 1970 to see what had happened in 1965, we had to -
first - FIND the 1965 binders, and then carry one from the vault to our
desk, open it - then take it back and get the other binder, the right one,
we hoped... You get the picture.

When I first started using Quicken - in 1990 - the situation was some
better. But still, with those floppy diskettes and even with the humongous
5 MB (yep, M! B) HDDs, it often took a good bit of disk shuffling to find
information from just a few years ago. Especially if we continued the
pen-and-ink model of closing our electronic books each year and creating an
annual archive, deleting prior years' data from our working file to make
room for the new year's transactions.

Finally, as disk drives grew, we could store 20 years' data in a single file
using only a tiny fraction of a hard disk. Nowadays, many (most?) of us
Quicken users like to keep ALL our financial history in our current working
file. My Quicken file has data back to 1990; its total size is a little
over 50 MB now. That's, let's see, 1.6667e-4 of that 300 GB HDD. (I don't
read scientific notation very well, but that's a very small fraction!) Even
with a dozen backups, there's plenty of room. So I don't feel a strong urge
to remove enough data from the file to save disk space. And, I don't notice
any slowdown in performance, sp that doesn't motivate me to shrink the file,
either.

What does motivate me - to keep the data intact and at hand - is the ability
to look back and see that I paid $71.88 for the local phone company to
install my telephone on November 13, 1990, including the first month's
service.

I think I recall trying to archive the first year or two of my Quicken data,
but haven't tried it since. I know the option is still there in the 2010
program (File | File Operations | Year-end Copy), but I have no interest in
using it. But I don't mind if Intuit leaves it there for those who want it.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Using Quicken Deluxe 2010 and Windows Live Mail in Win7 x64)


"Ray" wrote in message
a long time Quicken user --just some personal accounts... nothing
elaborate...

.. just wanted to know what is the purpose of Archiving Quicken Data
files...
I backup on a weekly basis or when needed.. can't see the need for it... am
I
missing something.. thanx

 

[Jeff]

Hi, Ray.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far away...

I was an accountant. I kept books. BIG books! With pen and ink (remember
those?). Each year's books for one company might weigh 10 pounds. A set
of books for 20 years might outweigh me! To keep the physical labor of
handling those books manageable, we would "close" the books each
year-end. Then we would open a new, slimmer set of books for the new
year. If we needed to look back in 1970 to see what had happened in
1965, we had to - first - FIND the 1965 binders, and then carry one from
the vault to our desk, open it - then take it back and get the other
binder, the right one, we hoped... You get the picture.

When I first started using Quicken - in 1990 - the situation was some
better. But still, with those floppy diskettes and even with the
humongous 5 MB (yep, M! B) HDDs, it often took a good bit of disk
shuffling to find information from just a few years ago. Especially if
we continued the pen-and-ink model of closing our electronic books each
year and creating an annual archive, deleting prior years' data from our
working file to make room for the new year's transactions.

Finally, as disk drives grew, we could store 20 years' data in a single
file using only a tiny fraction of a hard disk. Nowadays, many (most?)
of us Quicken users like to keep ALL our financial history in our
current working file. My Quicken file has data back to 1990; its total
size is a little over 50 MB now. That's, let's see, 1.6667e-4 of that
300 GB HDD. (I don't read scientific notation very well, but that's a
very small fraction!) Even with a dozen backups, there's plenty of room.
So I don't feel a strong urge to remove enough data from the file to
save disk space. And, I don't notice any slowdown in performance, sp
that doesn't motivate me to shrink the file, either.

What does motivate me - to keep the data intact and at hand - is the
ability to look back and see that I paid $71.88 for the local phone
company to install my telephone on November 13, 1990, including the
first month's service.

I think I recall trying to archive the first year or two of my Quicken
data, but haven't tried it since. I know the option is still there in
the 2010 program (File | File Operations | Year-end Copy), but I have no
interest in using it. But I don't mind if Intuit leaves it there for
those who want it.

RC

I also like to keep all my data and have not archived, but it leads me
to wonder if these are concerns:

a) Large files are more prone to corruption than small files. While it
is true that backups add a layer of safety, one may not detect the data
corruption until years later when all the backups are also corrupted.

b) I have 15 years data in Quicken and I have to say that in some of my
busy investment accounts, things have become slow on opening them and
especially on comparing downloaded transactions.

Anyone else noticed that?

(I am in Windows 7 64 with 6 G ram, but am not sure that Q is coded to
use all the available ram).

c) With the rumors of Q becoming solely online, this may anyway be a
moot question ........

Jeff

 

[Ray]

Hi, Ray.

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far away...

I was an accountant. I kept books. BIG books! With pen and ink (remember
those?). Each year's books for one company might weigh 10 pounds. A set of books
for 20 years might outweigh me! To keep the physical labor of handling those
books manageable, we would "close" the books each year-end. Then we would open a
new, slimmer set of books for the new year. If we needed to look back in 1970 to
see what had happened in 1965, we had to - first - FIND the 1965 binders, and
then carry one from the vault to our desk, open it - then take it back and get
the other binder, the right one, we hoped... You get the picture.

When I first started using Quicken - in 1990 - the situation was some better.
But still, with those floppy diskettes and even with the humongous 5 MB (yep, M!
B) HDDs, it often took a good bit of disk shuffling to find information from
just a few years ago. Especially if we continued the pen-and-ink model of
closing our electronic books each year and creating an annual archive, deleting
prior years' data from our working file to make room for the new year's
transactions.

Finally, as disk drives grew, we could store 20 years' data in a single file
using only a tiny fraction of a hard disk. Nowadays, many (most?) of us Quicken
users like to keep ALL our financial history in our current working file. My
Quicken file has data back to 1990; its total size is a little over 50 MB now.
That's, let's see, 1.6667e-4 of that 300 GB HDD. (I don't read scientific
notation very well, but that's a very small fraction!) Even with a dozen
backups, there's plenty of room. So I don't feel a strong urge to remove enough
data from the file to save disk space. And, I don't notice any slowdown in
performance, sp that doesn't motivate me to shrink the file, either.

What does motivate me - to keep the data intact and at hand - is the ability to
look back and see that I paid $71.88 for the local phone company to install my
telephone on November 13, 1990, including the first month's service.

I think I recall trying to archive the first year or two of my Quicken data, but
haven't tried it since. I know the option is still there in the 2010 program
(File | File Operations | Year-end Copy), but I have no interest in using it.
But I don't mind if Intuit leaves it there for those who want it.

RC

there is nothing anywhere in Quicken that states you gain anything except some
file space .. in this day and age .. no more floppies.. so DVD-RW disks .. flash
drives... and external hard drives are the norm.. seems like there is no worry
about the file size anymore... looked to me like it was kinda useless...

I questioned this because a friend of a friend uses Archiving but has no idea
why he uses it except that someone a while back told him to.. go figure..

I found this link.....a number of items in Quicken explained
http://financialsoft.about.com/od/quickenforbeginners/tp/Work-With-Quicken-Data-Files.htm


as well as this
http://financialsoft.about.com/od/advancedtutorialsandtips/ss/q04_archive.htm

I've been using Quicken Backup to a DVD-RW disk for a while now... I also Backup
to a 'My Quicken Backup' folder I created on one of my hard drives separate from
the main Quicken folder.. as well as backing the entire Desktop up to an
External Hard Drive

 

[D.Duck]

there is nothing anywhere in Quicken that states you gain anything except
some file space .. in this day and age .. no more floppies.. so DVD-RW
disks .. flash drives... and external hard drives are the norm.. seems
like there is no worry about the file size anymore... looked to me like it
was kinda useless...

I questioned this because a friend of a friend uses Archiving but has no
idea why he uses it except that someone a while back told him to.. go
figure..

I found this link.....a number of items in Quicken explained
http://financialsoft.about.com/od/quickenforbeginners/tp/Work-With-Quicken-Data-Files.htm

as well as this
http://financialsoft.about.com/od/advancedtutorialsandtips/ss/q04_archive.htm

I've been using Quicken Backup to a DVD-RW disk for a while now... I also
Backup to a 'My Quicken Backup' folder I created on one of my hard drives
separate from the main Quicken folder.. as well as backing the entire
Desktop up to an External Hard Drive

And then if the house burns down you better have backed up to a HDD kept in
a family members home or use one of the on-line storage services.

I believe you can never have enough backups of critical data. Hey...I wear
and a belt and suspenders. 8>)

 

[John Pollard]

a long time Quicken user --just some personal accounts... nothing
elaborate...
.. just wanted to know what is the purpose of Archiving Quicken Data
files... I backup on a weekly basis or when needed.. can't see the
need for it... am I missing something.. thanx

I think others have already noted that your understanding of "archiving"
isn't correct. It's not backing up.

I suggest you ask to have someone demonstrate - *conclusively* - what the
advantages of "archiving" are. I don't believe you will find any
conclusive evidence that "archiving" is advantageous in the current world.
Guestimates don't count.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, John.

Right!

Backups are to make sure that what I saved yesterday is still usable today.

Archives are to make sure that I have a record of what happened two or ten
years ago, in case I ever need or want that information.

Two different ideas for two different purposes. Both valid and valuable,
but each for a different purpose.

What Ray originally asked about is kind of a hybrid of these two ideas: To
remove obsolete data from the current operating files so that (a) we don't
trip over it, and (b) so that it doesn't slow down or otherwise hinder
current activities. This WAS a valid purpose when we were dealing with
those large books that I mentioned. Those suckers got to be cumbersome!
:^{ But Quicken on a reasonably modern computer is neither slow nor
cumbersome, even with 20 years' data instantly available, for most of us.
So I think that the practice of annually "closing the books" and removing
last year's data is obsolete and unnecessary.

Note that I did NOT say that BACKUPS are unnecessary!

I also did not say that it is a bad idea to have some older backups/archives
in safe storage. Maybe not necessary, but certainly not a bad idea.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.)
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Using Quicken Deluxe 2010 and Windows Live Mail in Win7 x64)


"John Pollard" wrote in message

a long time Quicken user --just some personal accounts... nothing
elaborate...
.. just wanted to know what is the purpose of Archiving Quicken Data
files... I backup on a weekly basis or when needed.. can't see the
need for it... am I missing something.. thanx

I think others have already noted that your understanding of "archiving"
isn't correct. It's not backing up.

I suggest you ask to have someone demonstrate - *conclusively* - what the
advantages of "archiving" are. I don't believe you will find any
conclusive evidence that "archiving" is advantageous in the current world.
Guestimates don't count.

 

[Jim H]

And then if the house burns down you better have backed up to a HDD kept
in a family members home or use one of the on-line storage services.

I believe you can never have enough backups of critical data. Hey...I
wear and a belt and suspenders. 8>)

Once a quarter, I start a new DVD, and take my latest DVD to the safety
deposit box at the bank. Worst case, if the house burned down would be
data that is up to 3 months old.

 

[Stubby]

Once a quarter, I start a new DVD, and take my latest DVD to the safety
deposit box at the bank. Worst case, if the house burned down would be
data that is up to 3 months old.

Let me add a bit of concern: I've heard that the old, expensive DVDs
(and CDs) have a very long life. However, the newer, cheap DVDs
start getting errors around 10 years. So the older ones might be OK
for archives but the newer ones should only be used for backups. The
key is to actually verify that archives can be read, say, once a
year. Revert to your second copy if not.

 

[John Pollard]

Hi, John.

Right!

Backups are to make sure that what I saved yesterday is still usable
today.
Archives are to make sure that I have a record of what happened two
or ten years ago, in case I ever need or want that information.

Two different ideas for two different purposes. Both valid and
valuable, but each for a different purpose.

What Ray originally asked about is kind of a hybrid of these two
ideas: To remove obsolete data from the current operating files so
that (a) we don't trip over it, and (b) so that it doesn't slow down
or otherwise hinder current activities. This WAS a valid purpose
when we were dealing with those large books that I mentioned. Those
suckers got to be cumbersome! :^{ But Quicken on a reasonably modern
computer is neither slow nor cumbersome, even with 20 years' data
instantly available, for most of us. So I think that the practice of
annually "closing the books" and removing last year's data is
obsolete and unnecessary.

Pretty much what I was saying.

I wrote programs to archive (and de-archive) data for my company many
years ago. Not long after I wrote them, they became obsolete, as the
capacity of hard drives and the speed of disk access became so great and
the cost so low, that archiving no longer made any sense ... indeed, it
added unnecessary delay and complexity to the access of old data.

 

[Jeff]

And then if the house burns down you better have backed up to a HDD kept
in a family members home or use one of the on-line storage services.

I believe you can never have enough backups of critical data. Hey...I
wear and a belt and suspenders. 8>)

Not too sure about entrusting my financial data to the cloud. One never
knows.....

 

[D.Duck]

Not too sure about entrusting my financial data to the cloud. One never
knows.....

I look at it this way. All my financial institutions keep my data on a
server in the "clouds". No way to get around that.

 

[Jeff]

I look at it this way. All my financial institutions keep my data on a
server in the "clouds". No way to get around that.

Yes but they have (hopefully) better security than these backup sites.

 

[slb]

Wanna bet?

I've been in IT for 36 years and am currently CIO at a rather large company. Go beyond the trade
rag and consultant (I was one of them for 18 years, too) hype and you'll find companies are very
cautious about moving all their data to mysterious "external clouds." Mine certainly is.
Financial institutions and health care providers are even more at risk due to the sensitive
information they must protect (I also worked for a major credit card company).

Besides security issues, you also have to deal with intellectual property concerns (especially
outside the US - see UAE vs. RIM), what happens if the cloud co goes out of business, declares
bancruptcy, or gets bought (will contracts be honored?), how to move data if you switch to
another cloud co, etc., etc., etc.

There's also the time necessary to encrypt and transmit data to the "cloud." A DS3 connection
(around $3k/mo) transmits at around 5.5 MBYTES/second. Moving 200 GB can take 10+ hours.

Several years ago I was CIO at a financial services company that outsourced our data center to a
colocation facility. I was at the site one day when law enforcement arrived with a subpoena and
hauled out a large shared disk storage array. Fortunately, my data wasn't on that device.
However, there were several innocent companies whose data was pulled offline for a while and
potentially compromised as the authorities searched the array. I immediately bought an array and
moved my company data from the shared device we had been renting.

There are some advantages to clouds but it's not happening as fast as some would lead you to
believe because they have something they want to sell.

sb

 

[John Carter]

Wanna bet?

I've been in IT for 36 years and am currently CIO at a rather
large company. Go beyond the trade rag and consultant (I was one
of them for 18 years, too) hype and you'll find companies are very
cautious about moving all their data to mysterious "external
clouds." Mine certainly is. Financial institutions and health care
providers are even more at risk due to the sensitive information
they must protect (I also worked for a major credit card company).

Besides security issues, you also have to deal with intellectual
property concerns (especially outside the US - see UAE vs. RIM),
what happens if the cloud co goes out of business, declares
bancruptcy, or gets bought (will contracts be honored?), how to
move data if you switch to another cloud co, etc., etc., etc.

There's also the time necessary to encrypt and transmit data to
the "cloud." A DS3 connection (around $3k/mo) transmits at around
5.5 MBYTES/second. Moving 200 GB can take 10+ hours.

Several years ago I was CIO at a financial services company that
outsourced our data center to a colocation facility. I was at the
site one day when law enforcement arrived with a subpoena and
hauled out a large shared disk storage array. Fortunately, my data
wasn't on that device. However, there were several innocent
companies whose data was pulled offline for a while and
potentially compromised as the authorities searched the array. I
immediately bought an array and moved my company data from the
shared device we had been renting.

There are some advantages to clouds but it's not happening as fast
as some would lead you to believe because they have something they
want to sell.

sb

AMEN!

In my mind, the "cloud" is still a newfound buzzword that could
possibly live up to the hype its getting. But until it is proven
to be something other than another method of separating users
from their hard-earned money, I'll stay out of the clouds and
remain in the realm of reality in the real world.

 

[XS11E]

There are some advantages to clouds

And they are?

 

[Jim H]

And they are?

I worked in large data centers and distributed computing environments
for decades, and seen how they provide reliable up-to-date computing for
the population that they support. Some advantages are:

Distributed computer power can solve very large problems that individual
computers cannot approach.

Distributed data can have instantaneous backups at multiple locations,
making mission critical data more available.

Distributed application software can be updated dynamically without the
worry of individuals performing the updates.

Distributed computing permits access to data and software from virtually
any location.

While some of these advantages are already a reality in limited
implementations, not all of them are being implemented across the
Internet, yet. As the development of cloud computing progresses, they will.

 

[XS11E]

I worked in large data centers and distributed computing

Distributed computing is irrelevent to the discussion, we're talking
cloud storage, a different matter.

 

[Jim H]

Distributed computing is irrelevent to the discussion, we're talking
cloud storage, a different matter.

Not really. In may last job, I was located in Arizona. My data was in
California, Colorado, North Carolina, and New York. Some applications
were local to my machine. Others were also on the remote servers.
Whether it is the data or the applications are being made available from
remote computers makes little difference. All of the servers work
together to make data and application computing transparently mobile.

From Wikipedia....
Cloud computing is Internet-based computing, whereby shared resources,
software, and information are provided to computers and other devices
on demand, like the electricity grid.

The question asked was "What are some advantages to clouds?" The
advantages include the things that I mentioned, including the two points
that dealt specifically with data storage. Instantaneous backups at
multiple locations, and data available virtually anywhere.