Quickbooks is garbage - Reason #15


G

Guest

Why do Cash Basis reports take 20 times longer to calculate than
Accrual Basis reports?

Also, after waiting all this time, if any transaction is changed on
the report the user has to wait at three times longer!

If you do a P/L report in Accrual Basis and you double click to zoom
in on a transaction then everything is OK. But if the report is Cash
Basis then zooming in on a transaction is a sadistic test of patience.
It seems like QB is recursing through the whole freaking data file to
check if there is any payment at any time for the transaction that is
being zoomed in.

Why? Because Quickbooks is garbage.

===
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Guest

HeyBub said:
You have spyware on your 386-33.
The malware is in your brain and you can't get rid of it.

If you have a 5MB file and only one user Cash Basis reports are still
slow but maybe not that much slower than Accrual.

If you have a 100MB file on a network with 3 users then you'd see the
garbage that is Quickbooks in all its glory.

Until you do, shut up.

===
 
G

Gary

It's just a matter of configuring things correctly - perhaps you should
learn a bit about the product and the operating system the server is
running. If a 100 MB QuickBooks file is slow to open or generate reports you
really need to optimize the file I/O on your server and check your network
traffic. In the case of a Windows server, a couple of changes to the
registry, a reboot and you can easily cut the time involved in opening the
file and generating reports down by 95%. Google IoPageLockLimit and
DisablePagingExecutive for more information.

For the record, one of my clients has a 400MB file, QB Enterprise, 10 users
in the file constantly, ad hoc and memorized reports being run all the time
and they have very quick performance - QB loads the file in less than 20
seconds typically and no one feels the product is slow nor does it ever
hang.

Good luck to you.


HeyBub said:
You have spyware on your 386-33.
The malware is in your brain and you can't get rid of it.

If you have a 5MB file and only one user Cash Basis reports are still
slow but maybe not that much slower than Accrual.

If you have a 100MB file on a network with 3 users then you'd see the
garbage that is Quickbooks in all its glory.

Until you do, shut up.

===
 
H

HeyBub

The malware is in your brain and you can't get rid of it.

If you have a 5MB file and only one user Cash Basis reports are still
slow but maybe not that much slower than Accrual.

If you have a 100MB file on a network with 3 users then you'd see the
garbage that is Quickbooks in all its glory.

Until you do, shut up.
I've got a 260Mb file, five users, and mine runs quick-like-a-bunny.

But of course I'm not running it on a 386-33.
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Guest

Gary said:
In the case of a Windows server,
There's no Windows server. Quickbooks is not sold for server
environments anyway. It's a simple Windows XP peer to peer network
with a separate network storage and the data file I'm working with
today is 140MB.

If you know of any tweaks to speed up file access I'd appreciate the
information. However, calculations for cash basis reports are
inherently slow in Quickbooks due to the horrid software design of its
database. The difference in calculating accrual and cash basis reports
has been a staple of Quickbooks since version 2.

For the record, one of my clients has a 400MB file, QB Enterprise, 10 users
in the file constantly, ad hoc and memorized reports being run all the time
and they have very quick performance - QB loads the file in less than 20
seconds typically and no one feels the product is slow nor does it ever
hang.
If they only enter transactions then fine. If they do reporting I'd
love to see concrete evidence of that. But Enterprise is different
because as I've mentioned before, Enterprise converted a 180MB
Quickbooks 2004 file down to 85MB. That means they finally got rid of
some crap bloat in the program that makes Quickbooks run like molasses
with all that waste in code and in a mess of a database that it's
using.

==
 
G

Guest

HeyBub said:
I've got a 260Mb file, five users, and mine runs quick-like-a-bunny.
Quick doing what? Do you do P/L reports by Customer:Job in both
accrual and cash basis? If your business is Customer:Job oriented,
like Construction, then you'd know what I'm talking about.

===
 
G

Guest

The difference in calculating accrual and cash basis reports
has been a staple of Quickbooks since version 2.
And since today it's Friday and I have a lot of time to waste, in
Quickbooks Premier 2004,
140 MB file on a network storage box (two 7,200rpm 120GB drives),
peer to peer network,
3 XP systems, all P4 1.5GHz to 2.6GHZ
256 and 512MB mem:

For a Job with 150 transactions (only!) applied to it:

A P/L for that Job on Accrual Basis takes 10 seconds to complete. It's
too long considering the capability of a P4 2.6GHz system with 512MB
RAM. It should take 10 seconds or less on a 386, not on a P4 for only
150 transactions. This is pitiful performance and the hardware is
certainly not the problem.

A P/L for the same Job on Cash Basis takes a whopping 90 seconds to
complete. No simultaneous access of the data file from other users.
They may be logged on but they're not doing anything.

For any transaction zoom a user would try to do and God-Forbid! any
changes or editing, add 3 times 90 seconds for each and every one
change. This is sadistic torture, not a decent bookkeeping program.

This program is an average desktop application, it should not depend
on special tweaking in server environments. I was seeing the same
exact pathetic performance with a single user and the data file on the
same machine since version 2.

I don't see any considerable difference if I move the data file on the
system doing the reports - maybe a couple of seconds here and there
but nothing worth noticing. Do others see better performance than
this?


===
 
H

HeyBub

Quick doing what? Do you do P/L reports by Customer:Job in both
accrual and cash basis? If your business is Customer:Job oriented,
like Construction, then you'd know what I'm talking about.
Hey, I know what you're talking about. You've made it crystal clear.

I'm just suggesting you're probably the only one on the planet with the
symptoms you describe. That observation indicates something unusual about
your shop. It could be you have junk computers, the computers you do have
are infested with malware or mis-configured by the twelve-year-old you hired
to configure the system, incompetence, malice, drunkeness, or even insanity.

I don't know for sure what's wrong (other than your attitude), but the
problem does not lie with QB.
 
G

Golden California Girls

HeyBub said:
Hey, I know what you're talking about. You've made it crystal clear.

I'm just suggesting you're probably the only one on the planet with the
symptoms you describe. That observation indicates something unusual about
your shop. It could be you have junk computers, the computers you do have
are infested with malware or mis-configured by the twelve-year-old you hired
to configure the system, incompetence, malice, drunkeness, or even insanity.

I don't know for sure what's wrong (other than your attitude), but the
problem does not lie with QB.
I can tell you what is wrong. He bought cheap network cable. He bought cheap
RJ-45 connectors to stick on the end of the cables. He has some 10 base T gear
and didn't put it off on its own switch so the rest of the net can run at 100
base T speed. His net is thrownig so many collisions that the throughput is
down to 25% of normal. And all his employees are busy running live music and
video on their desktops eating up all the rest of the bandwidth.

Of course if he knew what the hell he was doing he would be running QB in the
recomended client/server configuration rather than the klunky peer to peer
configuration.
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

HeyBub

Golden said:
I can tell you what is wrong. He bought cheap network cable. He
bought cheap RJ-45 connectors to stick on the end of the cables. He
has some 10 base T gear and didn't put it off on its own switch so
the rest of the net can run at 100 base T speed. His net is thrownig
so many collisions that the throughput is down to 25% of normal.
And all his employees are busy running live music and video on their
desktops eating up all the rest of the bandwidth.
That's certainly a possibility I hadn't thought of - it's never been
experienced here, probably because we did things right in the first place.
Heck, he could be playing the whole shebang on a 4MHz wireless network!
Still, the original poster is operating out of the ultimate ignorance mode
of "What else could it be?"

Now had he said: "I've scanned my P4-2.6 GHz machines for malware, defragged
all the drives, done throughput tests on all my networked machines,
yak-yak-yak, we perhaps could sympathize.
 
J

John

For a Job with 150 transactions (only!) applied to it:

How do you know how many transactions a Job has? What report does
this?
-
____ _
| __\_\_o____/_|
<[___\_\_-----<------------------<no spam please><
| o'
 
G

Guest

John said:
How do you know how many transactions a Job has? What report does
this?
The job that I dit this timing test on was so small that I did a P/L
report on Accrual basis and double clicked (zoomed-in) on the total
expenses amount. The resulting report shows all expenses in detail. I
then exported this to Excel and sorted by transaction type to get all
transactions together.

It would be great if Quickbooks would count how many transactions of
any particular type are assigned to a job but this is rocket science
for them. They can't even sort a list yet.

===
 
G

Guest

Golden California Girls said:
Of course if he knew what the hell he was doing he would be running QB in the
recomended client/server configuration rather than the klunky peer to peer
configuration.
From the QB 2005 product blurb on the QB site:
http://quickbooks.intuit.com/commerce/catalog/product.jhtml?view=sysreqs&prodId=prod0000000000007975003

"Multi-user mode is optimized for Windows 2000 Server or Windows
Server 2003 client-server networks, and Windows 98 (SE)/2000/XP
peer-to-peer networks."

You are an idiot.

===
 
G

Guest

HeyBub said:
Now had he said: "I've scanned my P4-2.6 GHz machines for malware, defragged
all the drives, done throughput tests on all my networked machines,
yak-yak-yak, we perhaps could sympathize.
If I've run Quickbooks since version 2.0 you could safely assume that
I know how to tell if a system is infected with anything and whether
or not network bandwidth is being sucked up in other tasks.

Even if my setup is not at optimum level, a very reasonable situation
given the small business market Quickbooks is aimed for which more
often than not does not have a network specialist available, a huge
improvement would be to cut out all the crappy bloat in the data file
and scale it down to a reasonable level.

If an 180MB data file becomes 80MB for Enterprise it would be a
trivial issue for Intuit to clean up the horrid data structure of
Quickbooks and do something similar with the Premier, the Pro and the
Basic versions. *THEN* we can talk about optimizing a network setup.

===
 
Ad

Advertisements

H

HeyBub

If I've run Quickbooks since version 2.0 you could safely assume that
I know how to tell if a system is infected with anything and whether
or not network bandwidth is being sucked up in other tasks.
I've been drinking beer for over 40 years and I still can't tell when I'm
drunk.
Even if my setup is not at optimum level, a very reasonable situation
given the small business market Quickbooks is aimed for which more
often than not does not have a network specialist available, a huge
improvement would be to cut out all the crappy bloat in the data file
and scale it down to a reasonable level.
You'd think God would have taken that into account so we could pull our own
teeth instead of having to visit a dentist.
If an 180MB data file becomes 80MB for Enterprise it would be a
trivial issue for Intuit to clean up the horrid data structure of
Quickbooks and do something similar with the Premier, the Pro and the
Basic versions. *THEN* we can talk about optimizing a network setup.
So you're going to do nothing on your end until Intuit optimizes their code?
Okay by me.
 
G

Gary

Well, it is indeed possible we're all idiots except you. But at least our
QuickBooks installations run well.

Proud mother watching (e-mail address removed) in the junior high marching band:
"Look! Everybody's out of step but Johnny!"

Think about it for a second: if peer to peer networks were well suited to
running network applications there would be no market for server operating
systems. Just because something CAN be done doesn't make it the proper way
to do it. And if hundreds of thousands of QuickBooks seats are running fine
and yours isn't, who's the idiot? And if you've been running a product since
version 2.0 and you hate it so much, yet you keep running it - who's the
idiot?

You were amusing for a while but now, honestly, you're just pathetic.



Golden California Girls said:
Of course if he knew what the hell he was doing he would be running QB in
the
recomended client/server configuration rather than the klunky peer to peer
configuration.
From the QB 2005 product blurb on the QB site:
http://quickbooks.intuit.com/commerce/catalog/product.jhtml?view=sysreqs&prodId=prod0000000000007975003

"Multi-user mode is optimized for Windows 2000 Server or Windows
Server 2003 client-server networks, and Windows 98 (SE)/2000/XP
peer-to-peer networks."

You are an idiot.

===
 
G

Guest

Gary said:
if peer to peer networks were well suited to
running network applications there would be no market for server operating
systems.
I'll ignore the rest of your crap because they're stupid comments.

Who the h*ll started a conversation about the merits of servers
compared to PtP setups? I don't take the QB blurb as gospel to expect
that QB *should* run as good as it would on an optimized server.

So let's suppose I'm an average idiot user and I don't know how to set
up my network or I don't want to spend thousands of dollars to get a
server and pay the salary for someone to manage it. Why the f*ck does
Quickbooks take 9 times longer to do a Cash Basis report compared to
an Accrual Basis one? Is that a function of my server? It isn't. It's
the result of the garbage that is Quickbooks.

====
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Guest

So you're going to do nothing on your end until Intuit optimizes their code?
What's there to do?

Spend several thousands of dollars for a 2003 server setup in addition
to hiring someone that can manage it? I can see this for Timberline's
programs or Master Builder (barf!) but Quickbooks with 3 users?

A basic Windows Task Manager check for Network Utilitization shows a
65-70% between any of the 3 systems and the box that has the data file
when moving or copying large files. It's not the best but let's say
that's the max I can get. When QB is calculating a report the net.
ut. drops to 8-10% at the most. Is that a network setup problem? I
don't think so.

I'm not complaining about an application like Access or FileMaker (for
example) and bitch about why they haven't squeezed the last drop of
performance by writing everything in Assembly code. Quickbooks is a
mess.

After all this time they're on the market they should have been
improving their program. Instead they dump tons of bloat on it with
every new version. We now heard that the 2006 version will be "vastly"
improved. Vastly improved crap that recalculates a report if you
change the header.

==
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top