I have been using MS Money since 2004. It is great at tracking the past. I have great data to use for numbers in my YNAB budget. I was frustrated with MS for a few reasons.

1) Some things I spent and catagorized were not showing up in some reports even though they were entered correctly (how do I know anything else is accurate?)

2) I never really learned how to use it “correctly” because support is next to nothing on it.

3) I ran into a limitation when I tried to put in the car we just refinanced and I couldn’t put in any “early” payments. Apparently no one in the world would want to make a payment before it was due and want to keep track of interest on a loan. Our car is our highest effective interest rate at present and we are looking to knock it out in a hurry.

4) I also question the logic behind some of the assumptions the program makes and don’t get a satisfactory explanation.

5) Uncertain of tracking of credit card charges in cash flow forecaster (was dropping numbers). Despite this, I liked the cash flow forecaster concept because it was the only real clue I had to go forward in time. Still this is being at “effect” because I couldn’t fully control enough of the assumptions (and if I changed one, it only would show me 3 months). I am working on a workaround to project forward in YNAB Pro (the program), actually found many suggestions on YNAB forum and tweaking my own as of this post.

6) Support in how to actually use MS Money is horrible except for the very most basic things, which are the easy and intuitive parts you don’t need support for.

Now with YNAB PRO, we are at CAUSE, bossing our money around.

Because of working in Money, YNAB Pro forced me to sit down and look at what I really want, to learn the YNAB Pro program as intended (from tutorials) and get answers to questions (through the discussion board). In some cases, there isn’t one way to do things, there are “ways” and then I may think of my own way. Which I have. Flexibility is a wonderful attibute of the program. It is intuitive, but it did take some work and thought (mainly because I want more out of a program than the average person). As I’ve worked through it, many times I have thought, “That was something that used to bug me in Money AND YNAB DID IT SO MUCH SMARTER.” My husband’s response is don’t be surprised if everything in the next version of Money is in response to YNAB Pro.

I was going to continue using Money, but Pro forced my bank downloads to it. I don’t care. I don’t need the other program. I can go back to look at old numbers anytime. I’m looking to the future…

I’m going to go to online bill pay instead of printing my own checks and got a good old fashioned check book for church. (I almost forgot how to write one.)

The “buffer” concept in YNAB Pro is brilliant.

I actually set up master catagories based on our goals and put in there where we WANT to be.

I combined budget ideas from an article “the 60% solution” that popped up in Money a long time ago, (the only one I ever read) but was clueless as to how to implement within their program… Go to MSN and search for the 60% solution.

I looked at ideas from Secrets of the Millionaire Mind: Mastering the Inner Game of Wealth by T Harv Ecker.

I looked at Dave Ramsey’s suggested amounts from one of his books I looked at for free in the bookstore. I put those within the notes beside each section of my subcategories (LOVE THE NOTES FEATURE).

I also think it is important that you prioritize what you want. I decided to call things positive names so we are always going toward what we want.

We now have a strategy.

We have a plan.

I believe God wants us to master our money, otherwise it will master us.

I thank God for this program, its creators, those who support it through their time on the boards. SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT. Truly exceptional.

You Need A Budget … you do. But you also really want one if you want to be in charge of your money.

God bless.

Rating: 3 / 5

That is to say, we don’t need to differentiate between mass and energy because they are just different states of the same thing. In fact, we often, and more correctly, say “mass-energy” when talking about matter because they are equivalent.

On the other hand, we know that some particles do not behave like mass should behave. Photons are examples of such particles. For one thing, photons can travel at light speed; mass cannot.

Mass cannot travel at light speed because, at that velocity, all mass has infinite inertia…which is why we frrequently call mass “inertial mass.” For example, if we accelerate a proton to 99.99% of light speed, its inertial mass M will be 70.7 times m the rest mass of the proton when it is not moving. This does not mean the proton’s mass grows in size, but it does mean it will be 70.7 times harder to move and/or change direction than when it was at rest.

The power from nuke power plants and bombs comes from converting the mass states into energy states. What happens when we split or fuse mass particles (like plutonium or hydrogen) is that some of the mass loses its inertia and changes into energy. As a result, the sum of mass before the fission or fusion reaction is always greater than the sum of mass after it. And that mass difference is manifest as energy like heat, nuke radiation, light, and so on.

E = mc^2 is a two-way street. We can and have created mass from energy in the lab. We can only do it in the lab because it takes an enormous amount of energy to make even the tiniest bit of mass. An interesting aspect of the energy to mass conversion is that we cannot make mass without also making anti-mass (i.e., anti-matter). For example, we cannot create an electron without creating the positron…the anti-electron. But the anti-matter is short lived and soon disappears as something else, like photons and/or some normal mass.

I grew up with a dictionary by my side while reading. I can’t see any need to have a conversion chart with me as well. It just makes for somewhat “jittery” reading, as your mind shifts gears.
Rating: 2 / 5

Rating: 3 / 5