On Dec 17, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Patrick Burleson wrote: >> This is on the request list. I never liked it much in Quicken because >> both Judy and I would write checks and the sequence was never >> clean. I >> guess this works if only one person controls the checkbook and only >> one sequence of numbers is active at a time. >> > > Yep, luckily for me we only have one account, so check numbers > sequence is never in question. > Patrick,
We have one account also, but both carry different checkbooks, which means we end up 25 or 50 numbers apart all the time. >> With regards to check features, it's funny to be dealing with the >> exact opposite in the U.K.. They don't have checking accounts and >> instead call them "current" accounts. Checks are considered very old >> fashioned and rarely used or seen, yet so many U.S. customers write >> lots of checks still and some even want MoneyWell to print checks. >> Personally, I've worked very hard to eliminate check writing in my >> life so I guess I lean towards the British in this respect. >> > > I'm down to 2 checks a month. One of them can never be anything other > than a check. :-( > > I guess my biggest beef is check # being in the list of fields that's > memorized with a transaction. I'd vote for excluding that field from > memorization before worrying about auto-increment. But that field isn't memorized with a transaction. It does show up in a recurring transaction though and that does have to be improved. Thanks. Peace, Kevin Hoctor [email protected] No Thirst Software LLC http://nothirst.com http://kevinhoctor.blogspot.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "No Thirst Software User Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/no-thirst-software?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
