On what I call my production system (live data) I only have one version of Moneydance installed.
On tests systems, well at the moment one has 5 versions of MD installed, but I run the software via a script (one version at a time and the script prevents running two instances) and I have a separate data tree for each version. Not something I would recommend for everyday use :)
The basic current data format has been in use since Moneydance 2015 so in theory that is as far as you could roll back. However there have been many detail changes on the way so it becomes a decision on how far you can reasonably roll back taking the changes into consideration. Most of the bigger changes occurred in the life of Moneydance 2017 as syncing was being refined so a reasonable position is that you should be safely able to go back as far as Moneydance 2019/20
Thanks, fellow user, that’s very helpful. I upgraded from 2017 straight to 2022. I know that the report formatting in 2017 worked well, and I don’t know at what point it ceased working. So for me, it would be most convenient to roll back to 2017 (or better, to have 2017 on my MacBook and 2022 on my desktop). Can a backup exported by 2022 be imported accurately by 2017?
Restoring a backup does not do any fundamental changes to the data, Restore is not a compatibility tool.
I would not expect anyone to have testing rolling back to 2017 from 2022, so no one could say with any certainty what may happen.
You should not try opening the same data set with two different versions of Moneydance or try syncing between different versions of Moneydance.
Sure if you had a test machine you could try taking a copy of the data and try on it opening it with 2017 and see what happens, but there is no guarantee and who knows what impact some changes may have down the road..
I agree with all your points, and I would never try using the same data set in two different versions.
I ask about the restore because I am aware that recent versions of MD incorporate some kind of compression of the data set, and it’s not clear to me that there’s backward compatibility of such compressed data sets. If anything, I’d guess it’s quite risky.
Very disappointing and quite irritating to discover, at the one time of year when I depend on using MD reports quickly and accurately, that the functionality has been lost. I’ll manage, one way or another, but if this glitch isn’t fixed quickly, it will undermine my 10+ years of loyalty to MD.
just a user - I know it's about report formatting, but it would be helpful to describe in more detail what the "glitch" is - otherwise, if no one knows what the glitch is, it will be quite hard to direct toward a fix, or to identify when it "went wrong" after 2017.
on 20 Feb, 2022 04:22 AM
I've posted all that info in a separate discussion I started called "columns sizes and sequence in reports." Those details seem off message for this thread, which I joined because I'm thinking a roll back might be the easiest workaround. I notice that tonyt and I are treading the same path; tonyt has also posted on my "columns sizes" thread, which I launched because tonyt's discussion on the very same subject, which was launched back last December, has clearly been ignored by the tech support team.
just a user - I read many posts, most actually, and did finally see another thread you are talking about.
One reason that many encourage folks to "stay on topic" versus posting incomplete information within many threads is it gets dispersed, and thus often not dealt with.
On topic, precise and polite descriptions of problems tend to get the most response.
As to the other thread I saw, you also didn't say specifically what the problem was. That said, I don't think it was titled "columns sizes and sequence in reports" - so that might mean this is spread over three threads, of which I've seen two.
And I think I was pretty specific, but to re-state it here: When a report is memorized, it does NOT retain either the column widths that were specified or the sequence of columns. The immediate consequence is that some of the columns of reports are not visible on screen no matter how large your viewing window is. This seems to be true for all types of reports, and even for reports with, say, only two columns, where you can see the entire width of the report, the columns are so far apart it’s ridiculous.
This is enough of a complaint all by itself. But it’s made worse because it didn’t used to be like this. THAT’S what all the threads on this topic are saying, and have been saying for quite a while now. It seems that new features are added to MD, and older important features get buggier or unstable, and aren’t fixed.
just a user - first, I won't disagree with you. I have multiple bugs and issues with MD that haven't been fixed.
That said, you did post above your specific concern. In the other thread, you posted an initial generic concern, and when someone tried to respond, you did give more details, but also shadowed the further detail by first stating that you didn't appreciate the previous response (i.e. the detail that could be dealt with was buried in paragraph 2).
And here? Your specific concern is totally buried.
I sympathize. I'm trying to help. But I'm also trying to say your scattershot postings and lack of initial full detail of the problem aren't going to get you an adequate response. (I've dealt with this quite a few times, and have many items still unresolved.)
To me, you have two issues:
Your detailed issue about reports
Your question about "which version do I backtrack to so that this works".
If I'm right, it's only because I read so many posts - but customer support for MD tends to address the specific issue vs. the generic. You have to be extremely specific to get a response from IK/MD.