Professional Genealogy Software
Debbie
Hi All
Does anyone have any suggestions about which software programmes are best to
use? Im thinking of starting up as a Professional Genealogical Researcher.
Regards
Debbie
the_ver...@comcast.net
Debbie,
You'll find that a great many professionals use The Master
Genealogist. It is an "Industrial Strength" program and is probably
the most customizable product out there.
They have a free 30 day trial download that is not crippleware- give
it a try.
Charlie Hoffpauir
I really don't think it matters much if you're doing research. Now if
you intend to actually prepare charts or reports for clients, then
yes, it does matter and probably means you'll have to be proficient in
several different programs to satisfy all your clients needs (or
rather, wants). I'd suggest just staying with whatever program you
prefer until some client wants something that you have to use another
program for.... then get and learn that program too.
bi...@harrisongenealogy.co.uk
Rather than a "Family Tree" Prog may I suggest Custodian 3 which you can
use to "manage" your data ... a free trial download is available from
www.custodian3.co.uk
A forum also exists for all your questions "How To's" etc
regards
Bill
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GENCMP-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
Ian Goddard
Start by working out what your requirements are.
For instance as an amateur your data has a cost associated with it but
it doesn't actually have a market value. As a professional it's your
stock in trade; if you loose it you're in trouble. So one of your
requirements is a solid backup/restore facilty - and procedure. (BTW
*test* backing up and restoring. As a sometime sysadmin/DBA I can tell
you that the first time you try this it can be quite educational!) And
that doesn't just go for the data files, it goes for the whole shooting
match, disk drives, software & the lot.
For another do you need something portable to take into archives like a
nettop? If so you might need something, possibly a separate package,
which will work well with a small screen.
Do you want to be able to print very large charts for clients? How
large? Rather than buy an expensive printer you'll be better off
dealing with a local print bureau. Investigate what file formats they
need and put generation of such files on the list. Note that it simply
generating the format might not be enough - you need to be able to
generate images of the appropriate dimensions.
Once you have your list you can look at the specs of what's on the
market. And look carefully at the specs; if they don't say an
application has some facility assume it hasn't got it. As Charlie has
said you might end up with several apps for different purposes.
Remember that you'll be running a business. Your requirements will
extend beyond genealogy software. Look at applications for booking time
spent; that's not easy, especially if you make one visit to an archive
serve multiple clients. Although most of the normal freelancing
concerns are unlikely to affect you it's worth downloading the PCG's
Guide to Freelancing from
http://www.pcg.org.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=729&Itemid=1211
Which reminds me to point out that your hardware and software will be
allowable expenses for tax purposes so keep the receipts.
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
Ian Goddard
> Which reminds me to point out that your hardware and software will be
> allowable expenses for tax purposes so keep the receipts.
So are subscriptions to Ancestry etc. But does anyone know if subs have
limitations in their T&Cs for professional use?
keno...@bordernet.com.au
For some time now I have been saying that it was worth buying a
Mac to use Reunion. I'd suggest looking at Reunion talk, the
support forum, over a week or two to get a feel for how often
the Reunion people actually respond to users.
Having said that (and I could say much more), I am now somewhat
out of touch with PC programs. In particular Roots Magic and
Legacy have become popular since I tried to keep up with all
the programs.
If TMG is now "industrial strength" then it has improved
dramatically. Some years back I refused a free upgrade because
of sheer lack of quality. The program was then slow and buggy.
I actually had a chance to report a major bug to the
programmers at some genealogy fair and I found them not at all
interested - a stark contrast to the Reunion people.
Best,
Ken
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:33:41 GMT
> From: "Debbie" <deba...@removehotmail.com>
> Subject: Professional Genealogy Software
> To: gen...@rootsweb.com
> Message-ID: <pIYLm.5499$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
>
> Hi All
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions about which software programmes are best
> to
> use? Im thinking of starting up as a Professional Genealogical Researcher.
>
> Regards
>
> Debbie
>
cecilia
>>[...] your hardware and software will be
>> allowable expenses for tax purposes so keep the receipts.
>
>So are subscriptions to Ancestry etc. But does anyone know if subs have
>limitations in their T&Cs for professional use?
It would be wise to check T&Cs of all applications regarding
professional use, including word-processors etc.
Hugh Watkins
some excellent advice already posted
I use flickr.com to share images of documents found in the archives
and blogger.com to share updates with my clients
trees I create in FTM16 and upload to worldconnect
(duly privatized)
a modern SonyEricssohn phone like the c905 or better has a setting for
photographing documents which speeds up note taking in the archives
Hugh W
Debbie
<keno...@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mailman.161.12583...@rootsweb.com...
> Debbie,
> For some time now I have been saying that it was worth buying a
> Mac to use Reunion. I'd suggest looking at Reunion talk, the
> support forum, over a week or two to get a feel for how often
> the Reunion people actually respond to users.
>
> Having said that (and I could say much more), I am now somewhat
> out of touch with PC programs. In particular Roots Magic and
> Legacy have become popular since I tried to keep up with all
> the programs.
>
> If TMG is now "industrial strength" then it has improved
> dramatically. Some years back I refused a free upgrade because
> of sheer lack of quality. The program was then slow and buggy.
> I actually had a chance to report a major bug to the
> programmers at some genealogy fair and I found them not at all
> interested - a stark contrast to the Reunion people.
>
> Best,
> Ken
>
> than I expested.
Regards
Deb
Debbie
"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7md4amF...@mid.individual.net...
> Thanks Hugh, I have taken your suggestions onboard!!!
>Deb
singhals
First, define for us what YOU mean by "Professional
Genealogical Researcher". Since you're on Hotmail, we've no
way of knowing whether you're referring to some professional
society's specific title and if so WHICH professional
society in what country.
Then, let's discuss what "researcher" covers -- if you're
only doing look-ups and reporting "No, it wasn't there" or
"Here's your copy" your needs are not the needs of someone
doing the analyses and conclusions.
NOW, let's look at "best". "Best" is, at best, a very
subjective opinion; at worst it's a bias. As in -- which
flavor of ice cream is "best" -- Double-Dutch Chocolate,
raspberry royale, Pistachio-mint, or buttered almond -- your
choice is unlikely to be mine, or that of my husband's
sister. Which automobile is "best" -- I have a cousin who
won't drive anything but a Plymouth; I also have my son's
promise to schedule me a psychiatric workup if I ever buy
another Plymouth. On another plane, whether the Ferrari or
the Lamborghini or the Maserati is "best" isn't something
that impacts the daily life of most of us.
So, subjectively, try as many of the genie programs as you
can without breaking the budget, and learn everything there
is to know about the one you liked best (HINT: if you're
looking at an expensive one trying to justify the expense,
try it first. Anecdotal evidence suggests everyone likes
best the first program they tried.) I was recently on a
panel where my program-of-choice was at the Free end of the
spectrum and The Master Genealogist was at the other end,
with two in between. EACH of them had one or two features
the others didn't have. Whether feature D is more important
to you than feature B ... only you can say. Whether Report
N is important enough to you that you're willing to pay $20
to get it from a built-in button, or whether you're willing
to use work-arounds to create it yourself ... only you can say.
Three of the professional genealogists (one of them
accredited by the BCG) I know use no genealogical program at
all. They prefer building timelines in Xcel or Word (or an
OS-based equiv). One genealogist who has a day-job in
another field uses standard paper forms to record info then
transforms it into text/narrative in his stand-alone word
processor. Another uses dBaseIV to store his data.
HTH
Cheryl
Ian Goddard
> Since you're on Hotmail, we've no
> way of knowing whether you're referring to some professional
> society's specific title and if so WHICH professional
> society in what country.
Country is easy. She posts via virginmedia.com so she's in the UK.
Trevor Rix
Don't leave Family Historian out of your shortlist, also available on a
30-day no restrictions trial. When I was retailing and supporting family
history software I had the choice of all programs and knew the advantages
and disadvantages of each in detail. I choose Family Historian v4 for my
personal use.
Trevor Rix
JohnO
So does "Who do you think you are", both British and
Australian Editions
John
Hugh Watkins
the job is essentially office work and making lists and verifying data
at source seen in other people's lists
you have to be your own office administrator and accountant in any one
man business
certainly you should discuss a tax program with inland revenue
paper is good for backup copies in a modern office
but little else
I used to print a tree totake with me to the archives
but now I can access the net and world connect on any mobile phone or
loaned library computer
I do use a simple bound notebook to plan my archive visits
Hugh W
Paul Blair
Trevor:
Why did you choose it?
I've just tried the 30 day trial, and I seem to spend a lot of time with
a large blank rectangle - maybe 1/4 of the screen - staring at me.
And I went looking for a query reference, to figure the syntax. Is there
one?
Paul
Trevor Rix
Paul,
Previously I used Pedigree -- also British, powerful and flexible. Those
were my main criteria.
If you are going to give Family Historian a serious trial, you are
recommended to go step by step through the first three chapters of the
electronic manual in the Help menu - Getting The Most From Family
Historian 4 (the first three chapters are printed in the boxed version of
Family Historian). Otherwise you will not understand the unique and
powerful concepts.
There are three methods of entering data. (1) via the Records Window (2)
via the Property Box (3) via the trees - known as diagrams. You choose
which you prefer. I prefer (3) because it is akin to constructing a
family tree on paper (click and drag to add people) and is the quickest
most intuitive method, working live on the actual tree/chart.
You choose what you want on your screen. Just close your "large
rectangle" (not sure what you are describing) if you don't want to work
with it.
Queries are explained in chapters 13 and 14 in the electronic manual
referred to above. You can construct customised queries at low level if
you wish but I normally use the built in query maker which is relatively
easy to understand and does most of what I need.
Trevor Rix
singhals
> singhals wrote:
>
>>Since you're on Hotmail, we've no
>>way of knowing whether you're referring to some professional
>>society's specific title and if so WHICH professional
>>society in what country.
>
>
> Country is easy. She posts via virginmedia.com so she's in the UK.
>
Ah. I didn't look at the headers. Thanks.
Cheryl
Paul Blair
Thanks, Trevor.
But I still don't know why *you* chose it! :-)
Paul
JohnO
Paul
If you're having problems with Family Historian, the
User Group is a very active and helpful place to try.
Go to
http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum&board=
John
Trevor Rix
> Thanks, Trevor.
>
> But I still don't know why *you* chose it! :-)
A whole host of reasons. Mainly because it is British, innovative,
powerful, reliable, fast and flexible. Because I can enter data directly
into the trees. Because it's clean and uncluttered. The trees (diagrams)
are very customisable; for example click on the nodes in a tree to switch
people and branches on and off. On the fly updating of child windows and
trees as I work. Free intermediate updates. Excellent support from the
author and publisher, the retailers, the user group and the Rootsweb
mailing list. Like Pedigree, Family Historian just syncs with my way of
thinking and working. I could go on but that would be boring :).
Ian Goddard
> Regarding the discussion on Family Historian, Paul wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Trevor.
>>
>> But I still don't know why *you* chose it! :-)
>
> A whole host of reasons. Mainly because it is British, innovative,
> powerful
At risk of going OT here...
You also mentioned "powerful" in a previous post. I can understand
powerful in terms of H/W and of server S/W where one can devise
benchmarks to measure MIPs, TPS, etc. I'm a bit puzzled to see this in
relation to genealogy S/W.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I missed a comment about FH being as fast as RootsMagic.
I will probably download and try the program today - I have tried most
programs. From the description it seemed it seemed very photo
conscious - it's tough in the colonies to find photos before 1800.
Hugh
Hugh Watkins
>> The first permanent photograph was an image produced in 1825 by the
French inventor Joseph Nic�phore Ni�pce. <<
read the wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography
Hugh W
Charlie Hoffpauir
Hugh,
I would certainly appreciate a post after you evaluate the
program....I'd be particularly interested in what FH might offer (that
RM doesn't), and your impression of the speed.
singhals
Yeah, Hugh, that's what makes all those slots for photos of
ancestors who died during the French & Indian Wars so very
... unnecessary? (g)
Cheryl
J. Hugh Sullivan
As you know evaluations are a personal thing. I'll let you know.
Hugh
Trevor Rix
> > Regarding the discussion on Family Historian, Paul wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, Trevor.
> >>
> >> But I still don't know why *you* chose it! :-)
> >
> > A whole host of reasons. Mainly because it is British, innovative,
>
> At risk of going OT here...
>
> You also mentioned "powerful" in a previous post. I can understand
> powerful in terms of H/W and of server S/W where one can devise
> benchmarks to measure MIPs, TPS, etc. I'm a bit puzzled to see this in
> relation to genealogy S/W.
Powerful, not in the sense of horsepower or precise benchmarks, but more
of an overall feeeling of good software able to conduct both simple and
complex tasks with ease and elegance.
Trevor Rix
Trevor Rix
> >>programs. From the description it seemed it seemed very photo conscious
> >>- it's tough in the colonies to find photos before 1800.
> >>
> >>Hugh
> >
> >Hugh,
> >
> >I would certainly appreciate a post after you evaluate the
> >program....I'd be particularly interested in what FH might offer (that RM
> >doesn't), and your impression of the speed.
>
> As you know evaluations are a personal thing. I'll let you know.
>
> Hugh
Just a few tips for anyone conducting an evaluation.
As I mentioned briefly earlier, Family Historian is not a program that
anyone can evaluate properly in five minutes. It is essential to go step
by step through at least the first three chapters of the electronic
manual/tutorial to appreciate how the basics of the program work. All of
the other features are explained in the remaining chapters. It is also a
good idea to press F1 for context relative help at any stage.
Create a Project instead of working solely on a GEDCOM file.
Try data entry via the trees (known as diagrams). Right click in a tree
for Diagram Options which is where there is lots of flexibility.
As with any program, take a look at the options in all of the main menus.
Trevor Rix
Charlie Hoffpauir
Sullivan) wrote:
Indeed, but I've read enough of your posts to think that if you find
the program "slow" (in relation to RM), then I probably wouldn't like
using it.... and just now I don't have the time to spend a few weeks
evaluating a program unless there's a high likelyhood that I'd end up
using it. (I really tried to use TMG for a couple of years, but just
quit because it takes so long to do rather simple things.) BUT, if it
ofers something new and useful, I'd probably try to evaluate it later.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>I would certainly appreciate a post after you evaluate the
>program....I'd be particularly interested in what FH might offer (that
>RM doesn't), and your impression of the speed.
I have given it a brief run. I downloaded a GED of 6,000+ people. The
program gave an opportunity to properly word wrap the import if
necessary. You can choose English English or American English. It also
gave a log of potential problems (REALLY long). The download was very
fast.
Although the original screen is not as attractive as RM or Legacy, it
is as easily navigable. Navigation (surprise to me) is as fast as RM
and as easy as Legacy. How to navigate was instantaneous without
reading any instructions.
I did a narrative printout of my line totalling 233 pages with
sources. The screen printout was very fast. The sentence structure
needed a LOT of editing and I did not check the ease of that.
The "Preferences" option has too many possibilities to dwell on now. I
presume it will allow one to change the screen appearance and the
fonts. Pictures looked very good. Data entry appeared to be thorough
and easy although I did not enter any data.
The records window has two outstanding columns: 1. the relationship of
each person to the root person 2. the last date a person's file was
updated. It also allows seeing various subscreens for each person.
Some of the charting possibilities are very attractive, especially of
the generations where you have a picture of almost everyone.
The cost to download and purchase is $48.50 USD. That is a bit steep
in comparison to some other excellent programs. The user group to
exchange ideas and get questions answered is a plus. I'm surprised I
have not seen more reviews since the program impresses me.
I already update two programs so I'm not burning with desire for a
third. However, if I had started with FH I might find it difficult to
switch based on my brief trial. I'll look at it more during the trial
using a much smaller GED for ease of experimentation.
I might add that RM and Legacy should be advised to review the program
- some of the features are worth stealing.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
Good advice I'm sure.
One of the first things I look for is how simple is it to use for
unsophisticated people. People don't like to read the instructions
until all else fails.I find it very easy. - one that a newbie would
like and could grow with.
VERY experienced people look for a variety of personal options and I'm
not competent enough (or not willing to take the time) to try all of
them - for me that would occur as I used the program.
One of the surprises is how much info is available (and I presume
additive and editable) for each person without leaving the main
screen. My use of "main screen" might be misleading.
I should add that I was not prepared to be impressed with the program
so it is a pleasant surprise. When a program is as fast as RM it's
fast in comparison with other programs.
I didn't notice whether FH was compatible with Windows 7. I plan to
switch the desktop from XP very soon - as soon as I upgrade my memory.
I will leave XP on the laptop. The program is for one user - I presume
the "key" can be used by one user on multiple machines.
And don't anyone let my complimentary words lead you to change
anything you do. My testing has been brief, so far, and every person
needs to decide for himself how to accomplish their tasks.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tre...@trevorrix.co.uk> wrote:
>Just a few tips for anyone conducting an evaluation.
>
>As I mentioned briefly earlier, Family Historian is not a program that
>anyone can evaluate properly in five minutes. It is essential to go step
>by step through at least the first three chapters of the electronic
>manual/tutorial to appreciate how the basics of the program work. All of
>the other features are explained in the remaining chapters. It is also a
>good idea to press F1 for context relative help at any stage.
I suggest the following URL for reviews of the top ten genealogy
programs.
http://genealogy-software-review.toptenreviews.com/
I don't agree with some of the ratings and I don't (not yet anyhow)
completely agree with the review of FH.
But the reviewers are professionals and I'm just a guy who posts
occasionally on this news group.
Hugh
Paul Blair
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:13:58 -0000, "Trevor Rix"
> <tre...@trevorrix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I didn't notice whether FH was compatible with Windows 7.
<lots of snip>
Seems to be.
Paul
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tre...@trevorrix.co.uk> wrote:
>Just a few tips for anyone conducting an evaluation.
The focus screen page has way too much white space. Is there any way
to change the color of the LOWER part of the screen - I can change the
top.
Hugh
Trevor Rix
> The focus screen page has way too much white space. Is there any way
> to change the color of the LOWER part of the screen - I can change the
> top.
Yes.
Tools menu > Preferences > Focus Window tab > Colours ... button > Tab
Fill > choose your preferred colour > Select > OK > OK.
Trevor Rix
Kerry Raymond
> occasionally on this news group.
But are they? I clicked the link on the profile for the reviewers and didn't
find anything that indicated that the reviewer was some highly experienced
genealogist.
Most of the reviews I read about genealogy software are written from the POV
of someone installing it for the first time and starting their tree. Do any
reviews say "I tested it on a GED with 50 000 people and it tooks X
seconds/minutes/hours to import/export/search" or how well it detectes
duplicate people or whether it supports a fully-functional SQL (or similar)
language for ad hoc reports or what its model for sources is? This is the
stuff I'd like to know and that you only learn from using it seriously for
some time -- not a play for 15 minutes and write a review. I'd really like
to see some "heavy duty" "stress testing" type reviews. Maybe when I retire
...
In the meantime, I'd prefer to hear the opinions of those in this group who
genuinely use a program and push it to its limits. It may be opinionated at
times, but at least it's a genuine POV.
Kerry
J. Hugh Sullivan
<kray...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>> But the reviewers are professionals and I'm just a guy who posts
>> occasionally on this news group.
>
>But are they? I clicked the link on the profile for the reviewers and didn't
>find anything that indicated that the reviewer was some highly experienced
>genealogist.
>
>Most of the reviews I read about genealogy software are written from the POV
>of someone installing it for the first time and starting their tree. Do any
>reviews say "I tested it on a GED with 50 000 people and it tooks X
>seconds/minutes/hours to import/export/search" or how well it detectes
>duplicate people or whether it supports a fully-functional SQL (or similar)
>language for ad hoc reports or what its model for sources is? This is the
>stuff I'd like to know and that you only learn from using it seriously for
>some time -- not a play for 15 minutes and write a review. I'd really like
>to see some "heavy duty" "stress testing" type reviews. Maybe when I retire
I don't disagree with what you say. But the URL does have a
comprehensive list of procedures each program contains (or does not).
I found the missing safety checks for Family Historian very
informative - and a little scary.
You last sentence gives a clue why I posted the URL. A lot of folks
are not retired and can't (or won't) spend the time to test the
programs. And over the last few years, a host of technically limited
people have become genealogists. I hasten to add that, compared to my
sons and grandsons, I am VERY technically limited.
I think it's clear that I like 3 programs - and I have reviewed most
for my own purposes - and I dislike one. Yet the one I dislike is one
of the most popular. So, can my opinion be trusted? That's why I
recommend that people try several programs before they choose - the
better ones have free trial periods.
>In the meantime, I'd prefer to hear the opinions of those in this group who
>genuinely use a program and push it to its limits. It may be opinionated at
>times, but at least it's a genuine POV.
>
>Kerry
Your point is well made.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
Gotcha - thanks.
One nice feature is that it lets you see the effect of a changed color
before leaving the edit color screen.
The program provides for source of name - Legacy does and RM does not.
I consider source of name very important.
But the Narrative Report leaves a lot to be desired such as "He
experienced Military 1945-1978." "experienced" is not the proper word.
I need to look at editing Narrative Reports.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tre...@trevorrix.co.uk> wrote:
Looking at reports... I am currently interested in two...
1. Narrative Report, Descendants by Generation
2. Outline Report - Descendant Outline
Each report has an Options screen. If I change the options on one
report, does it change the options on the other - or are the screens
for the individual report only, i. e., independant.?
I still have not located an ability to change the sentence structure
for Facts in Reports. I know, read the instructions.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>Hugh,
>
>I would certainly appreciate a post after you evaluate the
>program....I'd be particularly interested in what FH might offer (that
>RM doesn't), and your impression of the speed.
Still reviewing...
Navigation - I like the focus screen with the Records window (once I
changed the colors). But once you leave that screen for other views or
options, the way of getting back to the main screen is not obvious.
Editing - So far I have not found a way to global edit sentence
structure for narrative reports. "He experienced Military,,," and "He
experienced Divorce" appears too many times to require editing each
individual record. The editing problems I see would probably not
appear for original entries - just imports or GEDs.
Multimedia - Some names under the pictures appear twice - like
stuttering.
The screens and reports tend to use first names even though use of
middle names was indicated in quote marks. I absolutely refuse to
respond to use of my first name (except for checks). There may be a
workaround. Lots of info is truncated because so much can be
accomplished without leaving the main screen - I could get used to
that.
Once you get beyond the basics there is a somewhat steep learning
curve. Review of the instructions and help screens are voluminous and
difficult to find specifics. I stumbled onto how to edit, not by Help.
I still find the program to be very worthy. Continued use over a
period of time "might" make more sophisticated navigation and editing
simpler except for those of us whose "forgetter" has initiated.
In my brief time I may have misstated because of my novice status with
the program. I presume Trevor will correct any bum steers he finds.
Hugh
Trevor Rix
> Each report has an Options screen. If I change the options on one
> report, does it change the options on the other - or are the screens
> for the individual report only, i. e., independant.?
Having experimented with switching on and off Record IDs it looks like
the settings are independent.
> I still have not located an ability to change the sentence structure
> for Facts in Reports. I know, read the instructions.
See page 189 in the manual.
Briefly, Tools menu > Work with fact sets > select the event/attribute
you wish to amend > Properties button > amend the template > OK > Close.
Click Help in the above dialogue box and see Event/Attribute List
Dialogue > Fact Definition Dialogue and Template Codes, for more
guidance.
Trevor Rix
Trevor Rix
> Navigation - I like the focus screen with the Records window (once I
> changed the colors). But once you leave that screen for other views or
> options, the way of getting back to the main screen is not obvious.
Simply click the appropriate button on the navigation column on the left
to bring to the foreground the screen that you wish to view. For example
click the Record Window button if you wish to see the "main screen". A
right click on a button gives you the option to lock some screens so that
more of the same type may be created.
> The screens and reports tend to use first names even though use of
> middle names was indicated in quote marks.
To make room for the display of middle names in screens if they are
hiding from you, either stretch the window sideways or choose a smaller
font.
> I absolutely refuse to respond to use of my first name
Use the option to specify "Given Name Used" in the Names/Titles dialogue
box. In your case you would specify "Hugh". See page 72 of the manual.
Also see page 102.
> I stumbled onto how to edit, not by Help.
I repeat, to do the program justice it is essential to work your way step
by step through at the least first three chapters of the manual/tutorial
:).
Trevor Rix
J. Hugh Sullivan
I really appreciate all the guidance, Trevor, you appear to be an
expert.
I never thought I would buy another program, but I might change my
mind. However, I'm not sure I could ever commit to just one program.
Ease of editing reports is my current stumbling block with FH.
If I buy I would read the manual/tutorial and join the Users Group.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tre...@trevorrix.co.uk> wrote:
>Discussing Family Historian v4, Hugh wrote :
>> I absolutely refuse to respond to use of my first name
>
>Use the option to specify "Given Name Used" in the Names/Titles dialogue
>box. In your case you would specify "Hugh". See page 72 of the manual.
>Also see page 102.
This appears to be the reason I might not purchase the program. I read
the manual pages (not really necessary after your instruction) and it
worked. BUT, it only worked for one individual.
In the South many people are called by their middle names and have
been for a few centuries. The program does not appear to provide for
global editing to use names in quotes - or any other method to show
they were called by the middle name. Did I miss something?
Of course this would not be a problem for a person just starting to
enter new data - but imports UGH!
Maybe there are provisions on the import screen to take care of
susected problems. Or maybe we have a suggestion for improvement in
global editing.
Hugh
Trevor Rix
>>> I absolutely refuse to respond to use of my first name
>>
>> Use the option to specify "Given Name Used" in the Names/Titles
>> dialogue box. In your case you would specify "Hugh". See page 72 of
>> the manual. Also see page 102.
>
> This appears to be the reason I might not purchase the program. I read
> the manual pages (not really necessary after your instruction) and it
> worked. BUT, it only worked for one individual.
I don't have a simple answer for this one Hugh. One option would be to
open your FH4 GEDCOM file in Notepad and add the "prefered name" tag
line, for example
1 NAME Robert Alfred /ALLEN/
2 _USED Alfred
That may be quicker than visiting each person in the program itself. Yes
it would take time but would be a one off exercise. If I were doing it I
would use my left side button on my 5 button mouse to paste "2 _USED " in
the appropriate places, followed by typing the preferred name. I hope
that makes sense :).
Doesn't your current program already create a "2 _USED" tag?
Trevor Rix
J. Hugh Sullivan
Both programs create a GED with NICK, not USED, tag.
One has a Report Option to "Use Quoted Names", the other apparently
uses the NICK tag.
Without that my father and I, for one example. would both be known as
James and neither of us was called James.
Terminology is the problem. FH needs an import option to change
nomenclature to FH - or some program needs to conform to gedcom
standard nomenclature, whatever that is.
I appreciate your continued efforts to straighten me out - I'm bent
pretty bad.
Hugh
JohnO
Hugh
Please go to Tools > Work with Fact Sets... and
double-click on a fact. Here you can change the
sentence structure for the narrative reports. This
change is global.
You can also make an individual change. In the
Property Box, select the Fact Tab and for each fact
highlighted you can see the sentence at the bottom.
Click in this box and the sentence structure will be
shown. Edit it to your liking. Only this particular
fact will be altered. You will notice that the
background colour will change to white, indicating this
sentence has been altered.
JohnO
J. Hugh Sullivan
Thank you - I finally found it. I don't need to read the instructions
yet -you guys have not failed.
Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir
There have been programs written especially to convert from one flavor
of GEDCOM to another. Perhaps the best was GEDCOM Explorer (GEDX) by
Gary Bonham... unfortunately there's not a continuing demand for such
software, since once converted, it's rarely used again.
Back when I was using both FTM and RM, and before RM would import an
FTM data file directly, I wrote a few Word macros to "massage" the FTM
GEDCOM to make it fit RM better. That might be the approach to take
here. For a large database, it's certainly better than a cut and paste
for every person with a Nickname, or "used" name.
Trevor Rix
> Both programs create a GED with NICK, not USED, tag.
Experiment by opening a copy of your GEDCOM in Notepad and use Find And
Replace to change NICK to USED. That should only take a few seconds. Then
open the GEDCOM in FH4 to see what you get.
Trevor Rix
Paul Blair
I rather gather that FH works directly from a GEDCOM file - your own,
after import, or a new one that you create as you go.
If that is right, then the various processes are going to depend on
managing a text file, not a database. I ask this because on my home
computer (Core 2 Quad processor) FH takes the CPU monitor dials to max
quite often.
If FH is relying on a GEDCOM, is there any published info to indicate
just how 'true' adherence is to the standard? (what standard, I hear you
say. Well, yes.... :-) ) Has anyone done some backwarding and
forwarding (with repeats) in another app (eg Legacy, FTM) to see if
anything breaks?
Paul
Nigel Bufton
news:12586746...@chilli.pcug.org.au...
FH appears to be 100% GEDCOM 5.5 compliant on import, as Calico Pie claim.
Despite Calico Pie's claims, FH is not 100% GEDCOM 5.5 compliant on export
because it exports a number of its own non-standard tags which would only be
understood by another program if it were specifically trained to understand
FH's special tags. The standard states that non-standard tags are
considered to have meaning only to the system that created them.
Many program providers appear to forget that GEDCOM is a COMmunication
standard, not a database standard. Using standard language that the
recipient will understand is fundamental to successful communication.
Sadly, very few programs are 100% export compliant.
Nigel
(www.tcgr.bufton.org)
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
I must then presume that NICK or USER, one of them, is not a standard.
Right?
Hugh
Patrick Texier
> The standard states that non-standard tags are
> considered to have meaning only to the system that created them.
Gedcom is a bad standard with errors and missing features (ie: you can
store time of a change in database, but not time of a birth, death...
event).
If a program want read non-standard tags (starting with _), he can.
German programs are using a extension:
<http://wiki-en.genealogy.net/Gedcom_5.5EL>.
> Many program providers appear to forget that GEDCOM is a COMmunication
> standard, not a database standard.
Yes, but using GEDCOM as a database standard is a good way to provide an
100% gedcom import/export.
> Using standard language that the
> recipient will understand is fundamental to successful communication.
> Sadly, very few programs are 100% export compliant.
- GenJ <http://genj.sourceforge.net> doesn't use a database and works on
the Gedcom file.
- LifeLines, my choice, <http://lifelines.sourceforge.net/> stores
pieces of Gedcom in a Btree database.
--
Patrick Texier
vim:syntax=mail:ai:ts=4:et:tw=72
singhals
>>But the reviewers are professionals and I'm just a guy who posts
>>occasionally on this news group.
>
>
> But are they? I clicked the link on the profile for the reviewers and didn't
> find anything that indicated that the reviewer was some highly experienced
> genealogist.
>
Mostly the reviewers fall into one of two groups: the stark
newbie who got the program somehow and wants to tell the
world how great it is; the experienced computer-genealogists
who want to tell their readers whether the thing whistles
the tune of your choice of 100 tunes or only your choice of
Dixie or The Battle Hymn -- regardless of the number of
people who /want/ their program to whistle anything at 'em. (g)
> Most of the reviews I read about genealogy software are written from the POV
> of someone installing it for the first time and starting their tree. Do any
Well, yeah. Because if you were to switch from YourProgram
to NewProgram, that's what you'd be.
> reviews say "I tested it on a GED with 50 000 people and it tooks X
> seconds/minutes/hours to import/export/search" or how well it detectes
> duplicate people or whether it supports a fully-functional SQL (or similar)
> language for ad hoc reports or what its model for sources is? This is the
> stuff I'd like to know and that you only learn from using it seriously for
> some time -- not a play for 15 minutes and write a review. I'd really like
> to see some "heavy duty" "stress testing" type reviews. Maybe when I retire
> ...
Almost every review page I've seen (although, for nearly a
year now I haven't made time to look) DID check out the GED
subroutines and how well they transfer data Program A to
Program A and Program A to Programs B thru M and the
reverse. How well any program detects dupes depends a good
deal on what you consider a dupe -- is b 1837 a dupe of b
abt 1837 or are either of them a dupe of b Apr Qtr 1837?
Whether a program allows the SQL-trained to exercise their
on-the-job skills seems extraneous ... until everyone is
SQL-trained a simple search engine paired with an
advance-search/focus is really all most folks will use. OK,
OK, before the two Hughs and others hurt themselves, yeah,
there's a lot of info you can pry out of database if you're
willing to play data manipulation workarounds. Whether
that's easier/faster/ better/more fun via SQL than by
eyeballing lists ... hard to say. Nothing like serendipity
and far's I know there's no SQL query for /that/!
IME, no GED import is ever totally successful. And, my
experience with TMG didn't encourage me to expect perfect
results from GenBridge either. You want sureandcertain data
transfer, don't EVER use any niche, nook, or cranny in your
program. As Commander Montgomery Scott once said, the
fancier the plumbing the easier it is to clog up.
Cheryl
singhals
Not to mention, a nickname and a used name are not the same
thing. Noel is NOT a nickname for Edward, even if Edward
Noel Glockenspiel is universally known as Noel.
OTOH, I fought that fight on another list not too long ago
and I don't think I care to re-fight it here. :}
Cheryl
singhals
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:17:17 -0000, Nigel Bufton wrote:
>
>
>>The standard states that non-standard tags are
>>considered to have meaning only to the system that created them.
>
>
> Gedcom is a bad standard with errors and missing features (ie: you can
> store time of a change in database, but not time of a birth, death...
> event).
>
And isn't the /reason/ for that related to the huge numbers
of persons in our databases for whom we have no time, and
for whom we're lucky to have even month and year of an
event? Which also involved: when I store a time I'm most
likely to store it in the local time where I am; however,
1pm Eastern Standard in the US is not the same time in India
or even Australia. There's no way to insure/ensure that
everyone stores time in GMT or Zulu and unless they /do/ a
time is useless.
Cheryl
Bob Melson
<snip>
> And isn't the /reason/ for that related to the huge numbers
> of persons in our databases for whom we have no time, and
> for whom we're lucky to have even month and year of an
> event? Which also involved: when I store a time I'm most
> likely to store it in the local time where I am; however,
> 1pm Eastern Standard in the US is not the same time in India
> or even Australia. There's no way to insure/ensure that
> everyone stores time in GMT or Zulu and unless they /do/ a
> time is useless.
>
> Cheryl
A quibble, nothing more.
I'm moderately certain that folks in India and Australia, and probably
elsewhere, understand that 2300 EST (11 pm, if you will) signifies that
the event, whatever it is, took place late at night, _wherever_ it
happened. I can't agree that those who aren't privileged to reside in the
center of the Universe (that being defined for each of us as where WE
live) are horologically challenged to such a degree that they're unable to
make the appropriate time conversions. "Blimy," I can hear 'em
say, "2300 EST, why that's 1700 the next day! Poor blighter, must've
<insert event of your choice here> in late afternoon!" Naah! I don't
think so!
Snarky Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big
enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson
Ian Goddard
> Whether a program allows the SQL-trained to exercise their
> on-the-job skills seems extraneous ... until everyone is SQL-trained
There have been query builders & report painters around for more years
than I care to remember and these almost invariably hide the tricky
details of building the SQL. And although I know it's sneaky to head
back on-topic, custom report building might just be one of the things
the OP needs for her particular circumstances.
As both you & I said previously, her first task is to work out what
facilities she needs for the sort of work she's planning to do and then
look to see what provides them. In the absence of that there's no point
in pushing this or that particular package which is why I haven't
mentioned one.
> Nothing like serendipity and far's I know there's no SQL query
> for /that/!
;-)
--
Ian
Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk
singhals
> On Saturday 21 November 2009 10:03, singhals (sing...@erols.com) opined:
>
> <snip>
>
>>And isn't the /reason/ for that related to the huge numbers
>>of persons in our databases for whom we have no time, and
>>for whom we're lucky to have even month and year of an
>>event? Which also involved: when I store a time I'm most
>>likely to store it in the local time where I am; however,
>>1pm Eastern Standard in the US is not the same time in India
>>or even Australia. There's no way to insure/ensure that
>>everyone stores time in GMT or Zulu and unless they /do/ a
>>time is useless.
>>
>>Cheryl
>
>
> A quibble, nothing more.
>
> I'm moderately certain that folks in India and Australia, and probably
> elsewhere, understand that 2300 EST (11 pm, if you will) signifies that
> the event, whatever it is, took place late at night, _wherever_ it
> happened. I can't agree that those who aren't privileged to reside in the
> center of the Universe (that being defined for each of us as where WE
> live) are horologically challenged to such a degree that they're unable to
> make the appropriate time conversions. "Blimy," I can hear 'em
> say, "2300 EST, why that's 1700 the next day! Poor blighter, must've
> <insert event of your choice here> in late afternoon!" Naah! I don't
> think so!
Pffft. (g) As one who has too-frequent need for that info,
it just flat ain't that easy...when does Daylight Savings
Time ... we're on it, they're not, and keeping track of when
we're on it is getting trickier and trickier every year
[insert relevant quote about Congress in Session from Will
Rogers]. Even on a good day, today is tomorrow in India,
except for a brief period about my noon on days with no
vowel in their Hindi names ... And what about the days
before Time Zones existed? pffft. (g)
Cheryl
Mick
UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) which used to be GMT (Greenwich Mean
Time) Was originally selected because it was directly opposite (12 hours
offset) from a line on the globe stretching from north to south pole
which passed through the minimum amount of land possible and thus the
International Date line. From this point all local times, set as 1 hour
increments were made into the Time Zones. Most applications, computer
and otherwise use this as the basis for recording time and interpreting
between time zones. Apart from the fact that almost anywhere a time zone
divider exists it tends to divert around the appropriate man-made
borders for our convenience it's the most common and simplest method
(that mankind has found so far) to organise the fact we live on a ball
which rotates with respect to it's source of light and energy, making
ones day different depending whee on the surface of that ball we happen
to be. Even DST and it's international equivalents can be referred to as
UTC (or GMT) +n or -n as appropriate thus allowing for the correct
interrelationship between Texas and Arizona or wherever people do or do
not practice savings times or even those that do 2 hour clock shifts.
I would therfore suggest that time data stored be stored in that form
(which even Windoze does) and thus confusion can be avoided and correct
time be shown for any given location for the stored event.
Charlie Hoffpauir
Well, I'm sure everyone has an opinion; mine is that the ability to
store the time is about the most useless piece of information I can
think of. There have been books written about the Hoffpauir family and
it's originator (Thomas Hoffpauer) by 5 different genealogists over
the years, and he has been researched diligently by dozens more, and
hundreds have purchased those genealogy books, yet we don't even know
in what year he was born (abt 1735) nor what year he died (sometime
after Sep 1827).... so not too many of his descendants are concerned
about the ability to record the hour of his birth or death.
Just because something CAN be done is not a reason for doing it.
Bob Melson
It's only a problem if you _make_ it a problem. If you figure that the
event happened at a time that normally is in the middle of the night, or
the early morning or .., isn't that all you need? Makes no difference
that YOU'RE one day and 14 time zones away and YOUR time ain't THEIR time,
the event happened when it did and where it did.
My point is that most people can look at the time reported in a record and
sorta intiutively figure that time's associated with the place named and
not their own locale, that they don't rush about yelling things like "Good
God, Myrt, he was born tomorrow at 2 in the afternoon under the light of a
full moon!" I really don't think that recording the time of an event is
going to cause the foundations of the Universe to collapse around our
ears, tho' it might give Steven Hawking a bit of a problem.
And a friendly pfffft right back atcha.
Smilin' Ol' Bob
Ian Goddard
I'm with both of you on this one. *If* you need to record time than UTC
is the best way of handling it as other times are given as offsets. But
for genealogical purposes time of event must be about the least
frequently available (approximating to zero) attribute.
BTW, in relation to 1 hour increments I seem to remember that S
Australia has an offset which includes an odd half hour from UTC. And
just to add to the fun, that part of NSW around Broken Hill follows SA
instead of the remainder of the state.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I stuck my nose where I should not have and got a computer virus -
nothing would wipe it and Restore locked it up.
Fortunately I was planning to upgrade to Win 7 next week so format C:\
solved the virus problem. I am now restoring programs. I need to get
the son or grandson to change two things I don't like and dig up a
better graphics board than I have.
People who didn't grow up with computers have a problem - and those of
us whose "forgetter" debuted a decade ago have a worse problem.
Hugh
Mick
J. Hugh Sullivan
I understand - but I'm too old a dog and I have already learned one
new trick this year.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>Indeed, but I've read enough of your posts to think that if you find
>the program "slow" (in relation to RM), then I probably wouldn't like
>using it.... and just now I don't have the time to spend a few weeks
>evaluating a program unless there's a high likelyhood that I'd end up
>using it. (I really tried to use TMG for a couple of years, but just
>quit because it takes so long to do rather simple things.) BUT, if it
>ofers something new and useful, I'd probably try to evaluate it later.
I've been using RM as a "workbench" for the last few years. The idea
was to prevent clobbering Legacy with extraneous DBs and stray files.
I loaded RM on Win 7 yesterday, imported a GED, and some of the files
did not go where I expected them to. But I played with the program
awhile, update of a cupla days ago, and Bruce has really improved it.
The speed was always exceptional.
I just loaded Win 7 and need to play with it before I goof something
up. Then I think I'll take a longer look at RM.
I'll try to get back to FH before my 30 days is up. I want to see if I
can modify the Legacy GED and make it work for the FH USER name.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<tre...@trevorrix.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't have a simple answer for this one Hugh. One option would be to
>open your FH4 GEDCOM file in Notepad and add the "prefered name" tag
>line, for example
>
>1 NAME Robert Alfred /ALLEN/
>2 _USED Alfred
>
>That may be quicker than visiting each person in the program itself. Yes
>it would take time but would be a one off exercise. If I were doing it I
>would use my left side button on my 5 button mouse to paste "2 _USED " in
>the appropriate places, followed by typing the preferred name. I hope
>that makes sense :).
>
>Doesn't your current program already create a "2 _USED" tag?
>
>Trevor Rix
I saved a 2nd copy of a GED to work with.
I imported it to Notepad
I tried 2 global changes:
NICK to USED
NICK to GIVEN NAME USED
Neither was picked up when I imported to FH
That just about destroys any use I have for FH EXCEPT, I will
recommend that a list of names in other programs include a column for
Relationship to Root and Last Updated Date. Actually there should be a
number of facts to optionally display within the confines of the page.
I might check to see if I can print the list for reference when
updating other programs.
I hasten to add FH would be a program that first time users of a
genealogy program might stay with.
Thanks for the exchanges and help.
Hugh
Dennis
wrote:
>I tried 2 global changes:
> NICK to USED
> NICK to GIVEN NAME USED
>Neither was picked up when I imported to FH
Did you try NICK to _USED (note the underscore)?
--
Dennis
Charlie Hoffpauir
Sullivan) wrote:
Hugh,
I'd like a shot at making the GEDCOM conversion. If you care to send
me a small GEDCOM of a portion of your database that contains the tags
you're presently using (whether NICK or USED or both), and a small
GEDCOM from FH that also contains the tags that you've manually
inserted (so I can see how FH expect the tag to look in a GEDCOM).
If you're interested in this exercise, a "real" email address I
sometimes use is charliehoffp at yahoo dot com.
Ian Goddard
The problem here is that GEDCOM was designed for a specific, limited
purpose, namely communicating the information in which the LDS are
interested. Putting it to use beyond that has involved adding
extensions with the result that one implementation is not necessarily
compatible with another. Taking that together with the fact that its
underlying data model fails to distinguish between real evidence and
(mis-)interpretation suggests that something better is needed.
Any discussion of data interchange inevitably seems to veer off, as this
one has done, on the use of tags to try to fit in what wasn't
accommodated in the original design and this sub-thread illustrated the
problems inherent in such an approach.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>I'd like a shot at making the GEDCOM conversion. If you care to send
>me a small GEDCOM of a portion of your database that contains the tags
>you're presently using (whether NICK or USED or both), and a small
>GEDCOM from FH that also contains the tags that you've manually
>inserted (so I can see how FH expect the tag to look in a GEDCOM).
>
>If you're interested in this exercise, a "real" email address I
>sometimes use is charliehoffp at yahoo dot com.
I'd like to do that if my concentration will last long enough to
accomplish the task. I have some small database GEDs and I can send
those.
I think I'll wait until after Thanksgiving - I have just installed Win
7 and I'm installing the programs and trying to get them to work. Also
my graphics card needs a new driver and one is not yet available for
Win 7. The grandson brought over a card he had and no driver is
available for it either. Win 7 is using a generic driver.
My wife had planned to cease cooking for the family this year - we'd
take everybody out or have it catered. But somebody got to her and
I'll have a few honey-dos...
C'est la vie. But we enjoy family.
Hugh
Robert Riches
Come January (when it's no longer 'this year'), there will be
plenty around ready to help if you have questions.
--
Robert Riches
spamt...@verizon.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
Thankee, but I have just installed Win 7 - and I have a son and
grandson who are already pros with the OS.
Even at my age I hate to have to ask questions and be dependent. I
still think I should be able to figure things out for myself.
Computers make me swallow my pride!
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
RM had a data base, Place.DB.exe, some time ago. I did the .exe
install but there doesn't seem to be a way to access the program.
I'm sure you recall it was a list of towns, cities, long and lat.
That's where I came in, can you help me out?
Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir
Hugh,
That app (in my installation of RM 4) is called PlaceFinder. I think
it was installed automatically when I installed RM. Looking at the
properties of the shortcut icon that RM put on my desktop it says the
application is in:
C:\Program Files (x86)\RootsMagic\Placedb.exe
So I guess it depends somewhat on where you installed RM, but a search
for Placedb.exe should have found it. And I just checked, once you
find it it will open by just doubleclicking Placedb.exe.
Incidentally, the actual data seems to be a dBase or Foxpro database
(dbf file with a separate index file) that Access will open.
singhals
Much like thin-slicing turkey with a chain-saw. (G) Or, if
you'd rather, much like cutting down a tree with an electric
knife.
Use the tool made for the job, not the one you've got handy,
and things go much more smoothly.
People keep forgetting that each app is copyrighted by the
person who had the idea or the guy who bought the idea from
the guy who had it; either way, there's a self-interest in
making it too difficult to leave the originating app.
Those of us who want to bounce from pillar to post for
various purposes either have to deal with the hassle or live
with the mess.
Cheryl
with best wishes for a great Turkey Day.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>I'd like a shot at making the GEDCOM conversion. If you care to send
>me a small GEDCOM of a portion of your database that contains the tags
>you're presently using (whether NICK or USED or both), and a small
>GEDCOM from FH that also contains the tags that you've manually
>inserted (so I can see how FH expect the tag to look in a GEDCOM).
>
>If you're interested in this exercise, a "real" email address I
>sometimes use is charliehoffp at yahoo dot com.
I sent and e-mail with 2 GEDs - one from Legacy and one from FH. For
some reason I could not get RM to import the Legacy GED.
I mention this here because I didn't like the way my Yahoo web site
changed the way I send attachments.
Let me know if there are problems.
Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir
Hugh,
First, I did receive both GEDCOM files and they both seem intact. I
tried to import the one from Legacy into RM4 and it froze up (just as
what happened to you, I imagine). However, it imported into RM3 just
fine. (At least from a first glance it appears fine.)
Since you have this data in Legacy, and from an earlier mention, you
have RM4, you might just try importing that native Legacy file into
RM4 and see what happens (since RM4 claims to be able to import Legacy
native files directly).
I also should mention that it might be a while before you hear back
from me on this, as we're planning a visit to the grandchildren.... so
don't hold your breath, but I WILL eventually get back to you with
what I find.
J. Hugh Sullivan
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
No problem with time - have fun with the grands.
It will be interesting to see if reeinstalling FH gives a new 30 day
trial
Hugh
Denis Beauregard
Sullivan) �crivait dans soc.genealogy.computing:
>It will be interesting to see if reeinstalling FH gives a new 30 day
>trial
I think most softwares with a limited period time for trial are
using either the register or some file with a timestamp. That way,
the trial period won't restart if you only reinstall the software.
Denis
--
Denis Beauregard - g�n�alogiste �m�rite (FQSG)
Les Fran�ais d'Am�rique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur c�d�rom � 1770 - On CD-ROM to 1770
J. Hugh Sullivan
Merci, Denis. I don't really want to cheat on the guidelines, but I
could justify to myself that I have only used it one or two days so
far thus have 28-29 days left for sometime in the future. 8-)
Seriously, I might buy it if it cost about half as much, but I'm not
interested in paying the price just to keep updating three programs on
my computer each year.
Plus, I may be able to talk one, or both, of the other two programs
into adding the "relationship to root person" and "last updated" info
on the individual listing.
Hugh
Charlie Hoffpauir
Hugh,
Actually, RM4 has that one of those features now (and part of the
other). If you want to see the relationship of yourself to "anyone"
simply set yourself as the person to whom relationships are shown.
Then the lower left corner of the screen will show your relationship
to whoever you are focusing on (highlighted). Of course, you can also
set one of your ancestors to be the person to whom the relationship is
shown.
To set the relationship, highlight an individual, then click on
"tools" then on "Set relationship".
On RM4 the "Root Person" is another setting, but of course you can set
the root person to be the same person for whom relationships are
displayed, if you choose.
The "last updated" info is not exactly what you are looking for, I
think. RMs "last updated" info is called "last edited" and it applies
(I think) to anything updated or edited on any one person, not to
specific facts. In any case, that information is displayed in the
lower left cornet of the edit person screen.
J. Hugh Sullivan
I'll take a look.
On FH the alpha listing of people in the db has optional columns that
can be listed with the name. In addition to the usual options the two
columns I mentioned are available. I used the FH headers.
The relationship might not be very useful but the other column tells
you where you might need to do some research.
I have not done any programming since basic but seems like the two
columns would be easy to add. Or, maybe it takes a non-programmer to
say that. 8-)
Bruce incorporated a couple of my recommendations - I found him to be
very cooperative. The business has grown so I doubt that he is as
directly involved anymore.
Hugh