Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
An alternative to FTM 2010?
20 views
Skip to first unread message
PeterL
Oct 22, 2011, 4:44:01 PM10/22/11
to
I've been happy (obviously for years) with my Family Tree Maker 2005.
But my recent upgrade to FTM 2010 has left me very unhappy indeed: It
seems counter-intuitive in many areas, and is bogged down with bells
and whistles that I will never use.
Does anyone have any suggestions for another program I might try --
something that it would be easy to upgrade from FTM 2005?
Peter Lebensold
Toronto
But my recent upgrade to FTM 2010 has left me very unhappy indeed: It
seems counter-intuitive in many areas, and is bogged down with bells
and whistles that I will never use.
Does anyone have any suggestions for another program I might try --
something that it would be easy to upgrade from FTM 2005?
Peter Lebensold
Toronto
ne...@jecarter.us
Oct 22, 2011, 4:50:24 PM10/22/11
to
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:44:01 -0700 (PDT), PeterL <pe...@lebensold.com>
wrote:
Try the free version of Legacy
http://legacyfamilytree.com/
I've been using the paid version for a number of years and find it
more than adequate for my needs - 2 lines, about 7,000 total people in
the two lines.
The charting could be better - I usually use Family Tree Super Tools
2. There are also a number of third party add-ons for specific needs.
LTools is an example: http://zippersoftware.com/wp/
John
wrote:
http://legacyfamilytree.com/
I've been using the paid version for a number of years and find it
more than adequate for my needs - 2 lines, about 7,000 total people in
the two lines.
The charting could be better - I usually use Family Tree Super Tools
2. There are also a number of third party add-ons for specific needs.
LTools is an example: http://zippersoftware.com/wp/
John
Paul Blair
Oct 22, 2011, 7:55:40 PM10/22/11
to
FTM2010). :-)
Paul
DougVL
Oct 23, 2011, 3:11:16 PM10/23/11
to
It would help if you explained what you were looking for when you upgraded.
Well, it should help some readers. Unfortunately it won't help me because I
don't use FTM. I've read a lot of reviews of FTM and most agreed with what
you've said - that versions after 2005 were downgrades. I have only tried
the free version of FTM, and I don't like it at all. Same for Family Tree
Builder. But Legends does seem pretty nice, although I can't use it on my
main PC because Legends 5 won't work on my Vista, only on XP.
Try out the 30 day free trial of Family Historian. I think it's great,
although it's liable to be a lot different than FTM. I'd also recommend the
trial of GenBox.
Personally, I use PAF for all my data entry and maintenance, and other
programs for graphic charts.
DougVL
"PeterL" <pe...@lebensold.com> wrote in message
news:41d8d7ef-287e-45b0...@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Well, it should help some readers. Unfortunately it won't help me because I
don't use FTM. I've read a lot of reviews of FTM and most agreed with what
you've said - that versions after 2005 were downgrades. I have only tried
the free version of FTM, and I don't like it at all. Same for Family Tree
Builder. But Legends does seem pretty nice, although I can't use it on my
main PC because Legends 5 won't work on my Vista, only on XP.
Try out the 30 day free trial of Family Historian. I think it's great,
although it's liable to be a lot different than FTM. I'd also recommend the
trial of GenBox.
Personally, I use PAF for all my data entry and maintenance, and other
programs for graphic charts.
DougVL
"PeterL" <pe...@lebensold.com> wrote in message
news:41d8d7ef-287e-45b0...@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Paul Blair
Oct 23, 2011, 9:29:17 PM10/23/11
to
One of the complications facing people when choosing a new genealogy
program for home use today is the lack of software to match the
available hardtware.
I've been using 64 bit Windows for a couple of years. Most new desktop
machines being sold are 64 bit. Major software people (including one
latecomer, Microsoft) are writing 64 bit applications. So I can load up
my computer with extra memory, and get excellent performance - far more
than I can with 32 bit software.
I received a flyer for FTM 2012 the other day. I enquired if there was a
64 bit version. I was told that FTM 2011 is fully functional on both 32
& 64 bit versions of Windows 7. That's avoiding the question, and tells
me that there is no 64 bit version.
So FTM lost a customer...
Paul
program for home use today is the lack of software to match the
available hardtware.
I've been using 64 bit Windows for a couple of years. Most new desktop
machines being sold are 64 bit. Major software people (including one
latecomer, Microsoft) are writing 64 bit applications. So I can load up
my computer with extra memory, and get excellent performance - far more
than I can with 32 bit software.
I received a flyer for FTM 2012 the other day. I enquired if there was a
64 bit version. I was told that FTM 2011 is fully functional on both 32
& 64 bit versions of Windows 7. That's avoiding the question, and tells
me that there is no 64 bit version.
So FTM lost a customer...
Paul
Paul Blair
Oct 23, 2011, 9:31:52 PM10/23/11
to
One of the complications facing people when choosing a new genealogy
program for home use today is the lack of software to match the
available hardware.
program for home use today is the lack of software to match the
cecilia
Oct 24, 2011, 6:07:11 AM10/24/11
to
Paul Blair wrote:
>[...] I was told that FTM 2011 is fully functional on both 32
does what I want, even if it's slower than something that takes
advantage of the hardware's improved performance capabilities.
>[...] I was told that FTM 2011 is fully functional on both 32
>& 64 bit versions of Windows 7. That's avoiding the question, and tells
>me that there is no 64 bit version.
>So FTM lost a customer...
If it's a straight choice, I would rather use the application that
>me that there is no 64 bit version.
>So FTM lost a customer...
does what I want, even if it's slower than something that takes
advantage of the hardware's improved performance capabilities.
Tony Proctor
Oct 24, 2011, 6:22:16 AM10/24/11
to
"Paul Blair" <pbl...@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:4ea4bf6e$0$22471$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
and so should have generally better performance if that memory is available.
However, a well-designed 32-bit product doesn't have to be slow Paul. I was
once the designer for a 32-bit database engine that analysed many Terabytes
of data for business use - more than any family tree I know of :-)
I suspect a lot of 'application programming' is becoming lazy these days.
Environments like dotNet and Java disassociate the developer from what's
really happening on the machine. The principles of virtual memory management
and the relative speeds of access to RAM and disk are sadly confined to
academic text books now.
Tony Proctor
Erik Schmidt
Oct 24, 2011, 6:37:39 AM10/24/11
to
> Environments like dotNet and Java disassociate the developer from what's
> really happening on the machine. The principles of virtual memory
> management and the relative speeds of access to RAM and disk are sadly
> confined to academic text books now.
Best regards, Erik
steve
Oct 24, 2011, 9:34:22 AM10/24/11
to
While acknowledging that "genealogy program" means many things to many
people, I don't see how any genealogy program is going to be enhanced
by having a faster computer or by being 64bit rather than 32bit.
Right now I'm not waiting on my computer. It is waiting for me. I
would be perfectly happy with my old BrothersKeeper running in DOS on
my old 386 if it had produced "standard" GEDCOMs.
What's important to me in a genealogy program is ease of data entry
and the production of a GEDCOM.
--
Tony Proctor
Oct 24, 2011, 11:29:51 AM10/24/11
to
"steve" <shmar...@ticnet.com> wrote in message
news:46784ae8-ebb3-4f4b...@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Steve, e.g. ease-of-use (as you say), program that understands what data I
want to save and how I want to work (not the other way around), ability to
retain your data in a safe format independent of the program vendor (ideally
not GEDCOM in my case), reliability, etc.
I wonder just how much real input is solicited from family historians and
genealogists when a new program is conceived? Or, is the goal simply a
full-colour pedigree chart and the rest is left up to the developers?
Tony Proctor
Bob Melson
Oct 24, 2011, 12:47:32 PM10/24/11
to
On Monday 24 October 2011 09:29, Tony Proctor
(tony@proctor_NoMore_SPAM.net) opined:
Considering that, IMNSHO, MOST folks dabbling in genealogy are little more
than name collectors who want only to print a chart of their ancestry back
to Adam and Eve, the program that'll give 'em the best full-color chart is
what's important. Nothing else would seem to matter. And, since most of
that bunch use Windows of one form or another ...
Stray thought. Dunno if anybody's done a nose-count, but it'd be
interesting to know just how many genealogy hobbyists do "serious" work
vs. how many are merely name collectors. ISTM that the latter group
comprise the huge majority, but, then, that may just be my curmudgeonly
side speaking.
Stupendous Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated
in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine
(tony@proctor_NoMore_SPAM.net) opined:
than name collectors who want only to print a chart of their ancestry back
to Adam and Eve, the program that'll give 'em the best full-color chart is
what's important. Nothing else would seem to matter. And, since most of
that bunch use Windows of one form or another ...
Stray thought. Dunno if anybody's done a nose-count, but it'd be
interesting to know just how many genealogy hobbyists do "serious" work
vs. how many are merely name collectors. ISTM that the latter group
comprise the huge majority, but, then, that may just be my curmudgeonly
side speaking.
Stupendous Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated
in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine
PeterL
Oct 24, 2011, 1:05:26 PM10/24/11
to
Well, this discussion has wandered - somewhat - from my original
question, but I gather that (1) I am not alone in my frustration with
recent versions of FTM, and (2) to summarize, some other options worth
trying would be ...
Legacy,
Legends,
Family Historian and
GenBox.
In private emails, Master Genealogist has also been recommended.
And, if I ever switch from my Windows PC to a Mac, apparently Reunion
is highly regarded.
So it looks like I have some research ahead of me ...
... or I could simply stay with FTM2005 until they pry my current XP
32-bit machine from (to quote Charlton Heston on another matter) "my
cold, dead hands".
Thank you everyone!
question, but I gather that (1) I am not alone in my frustration with
recent versions of FTM, and (2) to summarize, some other options worth
trying would be ...
Legacy,
Legends,
Family Historian and
GenBox.
In private emails, Master Genealogist has also been recommended.
And, if I ever switch from my Windows PC to a Mac, apparently Reunion
is highly regarded.
So it looks like I have some research ahead of me ...
... or I could simply stay with FTM2005 until they pry my current XP
32-bit machine from (to quote Charlton Heston on another matter) "my
cold, dead hands".
Thank you everyone!
Paul Blair
Oct 24, 2011, 3:41:48 PM10/24/11
to
notes, references and material to try to understand about the lives of
the people involved.
Yes, I can make a choice based on a dozen ergonomic parameters, but the
present program is slow. Full stop. I crave for something better.
Paul
Kurt F
Oct 24, 2011, 3:47:04 PM10/24/11
to
I am using FTM2006 on a PC with Windows 7, and it works normally.
It loaded in compatibility mode in the folder Program Files (x86).
I am glad that I stopped upgrading in time.
Kurt F
DougVL
Oct 24, 2011, 11:41:30 PM10/24/11
to
Right - If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I had an older desktop with Win98. After several years, I added XP just so
I could use some software to convert videos from Flash FLV to MP4 for an
MP3/MP4 music/video player. But I still used Win98 most of the time.
I finally bought a laptop in 2008, and it came with Vista. I heartily
dis-recommend Vista. I've heard Win7 being called Microsoft's fix for
Vista. And my favorite programs that I'd used for years, like AutoCad 2000
and Office 97, just will not run on Vista. After a year or so of grief, I
added an XP partition to my laptop and set it up for dual booting. And more
recently (today) I tried to install the "Family Matters" genealogy program.
Maybe because it uses an older Microsoft Access database engine, it will not
install on Vista.
To sum up, beware of upgrades you don't <really> need.
But it's still fun, and educational, to try other programs. Instead of
upgrading, why not try adding a second, different program? It's hard to
find one that wont't take or make a GEDCOM, and that's all you need to share
your data with various programs. You don't have to give up your 'trusty'
2005 to gain some new capabilities.
news:a969abcc-830c-4de0...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
I had an older desktop with Win98. After several years, I added XP just so
I could use some software to convert videos from Flash FLV to MP4 for an
MP3/MP4 music/video player. But I still used Win98 most of the time.
I finally bought a laptop in 2008, and it came with Vista. I heartily
dis-recommend Vista. I've heard Win7 being called Microsoft's fix for
Vista. And my favorite programs that I'd used for years, like AutoCad 2000
and Office 97, just will not run on Vista. After a year or so of grief, I
added an XP partition to my laptop and set it up for dual booting. And more
recently (today) I tried to install the "Family Matters" genealogy program.
Maybe because it uses an older Microsoft Access database engine, it will not
install on Vista.
To sum up, beware of upgrades you don't <really> need.
But it's still fun, and educational, to try other programs. Instead of
upgrading, why not try adding a second, different program? It's hard to
find one that wont't take or make a GEDCOM, and that's all you need to share
your data with various programs. You don't have to give up your 'trusty'
2005 to gain some new capabilities.
news:a969abcc-830c-4de0...@j15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
DougVL
Oct 24, 2011, 11:45:10 PM10/24/11
to
Be careful there! Unless your problem is having enough source
documentation, you'll call down the wrath of the 'true' genealogists!
I'm beginning to think they should be called 'history lawyers' instead of
genealogists.
news:4ea5bf80$0$2447$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
documentation, you'll call down the wrath of the 'true' genealogists!
I'm beginning to think they should be called 'history lawyers' instead of
genealogists.
news:4ea5bf80$0$2447$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Paul Blair
Oct 25, 2011, 12:55:40 AM10/25/11
to
On 25-Oct-2011 2:45 pm, DougVL wrote:
> Be careful there! Unless your problem is having enough source
> documentation, you'll call down the wrath of the 'true' genealogists!
>
> I'm beginning to think they should be called 'history lawyers' instead
> of genealogists.
>
>
I'm into family, not genealogy! :-)
> Be careful there! Unless your problem is having enough source
> documentation, you'll call down the wrath of the 'true' genealogists!
>
> I'm beginning to think they should be called 'history lawyers' instead
> of genealogists.
>
>
Paul
Steve Hayes
Oct 26, 2011, 9:21:36 PM10/26/11
to
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:11:16 -0400, "DougVL" <swor...@netonecom.net> wrote:
>It would help if you explained what you were looking for when you upgraded.
>
>Well, it should help some readers. Unfortunately it won't help me because I
>don't use FTM. I've read a lot of reviews of FTM and most agreed with what
>you've said - that versions after 2005 were downgrades. I have only tried
>the free version of FTM, and I don't like it at all. Same for Family Tree
>Builder. But Legends does seem pretty nice, although I can't use it on my
>main PC because Legends 5 won't work on my Vista, only on XP.
Legends 5 works fine on my wife's computer, which runs Vista, and on my XP and
>It would help if you explained what you were looking for when you upgraded.
>
>Well, it should help some readers. Unfortunately it won't help me because I
>don't use FTM. I've read a lot of reviews of FTM and most agreed with what
>you've said - that versions after 2005 were downgrades. I have only tried
>the free version of FTM, and I don't like it at all. Same for Family Tree
>Builder. But Legends does seem pretty nice, although I can't use it on my
>main PC because Legends 5 won't work on my Vista, only on XP.
Win 7 machines as well.
But I agree that the OP should say what it is about FTM 2005 that FTM 2010
doesn't have.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Paul Blair
Oct 26, 2011, 11:59:04 PM10/26/11
to
The OP said FTM 2010 "is bogged down with bells
and whistles that I will never use."
Paul
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 27, 2011, 6:46:07 AM10/27/11
to
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:59:04 +1100, Paul Blair <pbl...@pcug.org.au>
wrote:
>The OP said FTM 2010 "is bogged down with bells
>and whistles that I will never use."
>
>Paul
Isn't that the result of companies producing less expensive, one size
fits all programs?
Hugh
wrote:
>The OP said FTM 2010 "is bogged down with bells
>and whistles that I will never use."
>
>Paul
fits all programs?
Hugh
DougVL
Oct 27, 2011, 10:26:21 AM10/27/11
to
That"s interesting!
On my Vista, when the opening Legends splash screen comes up, I get an
'appcrash' and the opportunity to have Windows look for a solution online.
DougVL
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:fccha7tjg8f9pebu8...@4ax.com...
On my Vista, when the opening Legends splash screen comes up, I get an
'appcrash' and the opportunity to have Windows look for a solution online.
DougVL
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:fccha7tjg8f9pebu8...@4ax.com...
DougVL
Oct 27, 2011, 10:28:53 AM10/27/11
to
"Paul Blair" <pbl...@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:4ea8d70e$0$13391$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> The OP said FTM 2010 "is bogged down with bells
> and whistles that I will never use."
>
> Paul
>
Yes, right, based on that I"d recommend he try Personal Ancestral File (my
> and whistles that I will never use."
>
> Paul
>
favorite), but it would have even fewer bells and whistles than FTM 2005.
DougVL
Lesley Robertson
Oct 28, 2011, 6:00:29 AM10/28/11
to
One of the things I like about WIN 7 (as opposed to Vista) is that if
there's a software problem, it offers to run the programme in XP mode. I'm
now using a number of older programmes that wouldn't work on Vista without
any problems.
Lesley Robertson
"DougVL" <swor...@netonecom.net> wrote in message
news:j8bpmf$ut6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
there's a software problem, it offers to run the programme in XP mode. I'm
now using a number of older programmes that wouldn't work on Vista without
any problems.
Lesley Robertson
"DougVL" <swor...@netonecom.net> wrote in message
news:j8bpmf$ut6$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 28, 2011, 9:02:27 AM10/28/11
to
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:00:29 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
<l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>One of the things I like about WIN 7 (as opposed to Vista) is that if
>there's a software problem, it offers to run the programme in XP mode. I'm
>now using a number of older programmes that wouldn't work on Vista without
>any problems.
>Lesley Robertson
I went from 2000 to XP to 7 - no problem with any programs. But I
<l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>One of the things I like about WIN 7 (as opposed to Vista) is that if
>there's a software problem, it offers to run the programme in XP mode. I'm
>now using a number of older programmes that wouldn't work on Vista without
>any problems.
>Lesley Robertson
still have a warm spot for DOS when I could control the computer vice
vice versa.
Home Premium is better than Ultimate unless you are a pro who likes to
blow bells and ring whistles - whatever!
Hugh
Message has been deleted
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 28, 2011, 2:33:44 PM10/28/11
to
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:50:03 -0700, Dennis Lee Bieber
<wlf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:02:27 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
>declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:
>comes native on Win7, and maybe Vista).
>--
> Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
> wlf...@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
At my age I'm trying my best not to get even more confused, Dennis.
After marriage I learned to accept being controlled - but if I want my
wife to know that, please let me surprise her!
Hugh
<wlf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:02:27 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)
>declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:
>
>>
>> I went from 2000 to XP to 7 - no problem with any programs. But I
>> still have a warm spot for DOS when I could control the computer vice
>> vice versa.
>>
> Have you discovered Window PowerShell (it was a download for XP, but
>>
>> I went from 2000 to XP to 7 - no problem with any programs. But I
>> still have a warm spot for DOS when I could control the computer vice
>> vice versa.
>>
>comes native on Win7, and maybe Vista).
>--
> Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
> wlf...@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
At my age I'm trying my best not to get even more confused, Dennis.
After marriage I learned to accept being controlled - but if I want my
wife to know that, please let me surprise her!
Hugh
windsongbelle
Nov 14, 2011, 3:48:04 AM11/14/11
to
try family search free software was recommended to me , I like it !
On Oct 28, 8:02 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:00:29 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
>
On Oct 28, 8:02 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:00:29 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
>
Wes
Jan 7, 2012, 5:32:48 PM1/7/12
to
On 10/22/2011 4:44 PM, PeterL wrote:
> I've been happy (obviously for years) with my Family Tree Maker 2005.
> But my recent upgrade to FTM 2010 has left me very unhappy indeed: It
> seems counter-intuitive in many areas, and is bogged down with bells
> I've been happy (obviously for years) with my Family Tree Maker 2005.
> But my recent upgrade to FTM 2010 has left me very unhappy indeed: It
> and whistles that I will never use.
>
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions for another program I might try --
> something that it would be easy to upgrade from FTM 2005?
>
> Peter Lebensold
> Toronto
I have used FTM in the past but recently moved to Legacy Family Tree.
> something that it would be easy to upgrade from FTM 2005?
>
> Peter Lebensold
> Toronto
The basic version is free and handles just about everything you need.
The deluxe version has some more bells and whistles and costs only
$29.00. Of course, there are lots of other items that can be had :-)
I find the inputs to be extremely easy, the reports to be excellent and
the charts to be very good.
Give it a try.
Wes
Wes Groleau
Jan 7, 2012, 8:58:32 PM1/7/12
to
On 01-07-2012 17:32, Wes wrote:
> I have used FTM in the past but recently moved to Legacy Family Tree.
> The basic version is free and handles just about everything you need.
> The deluxe version has some more bells and whistles and costs only
> $29.00. Of course, there are lots of other items that can be had :-)
Just in case anyone was confused, there are two of us. Both great guys
> I have used FTM in the past but recently moved to Legacy Family Tree.
> The basic version is free and handles just about everything you need.
> The deluxe version has some more bells and whistles and costs only
> $29.00. Of course, there are lots of other items that can be had :-)
of course, but still different. My recommendation is webtrees.
Advantages:
* Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
(unless you want someone else to control it for you).
* You can grant accounts to relatives to help you make updates.
* Software is free and comes in source form so you can change it
yourself if you're the sort that does such things. I use SVN so that I
can make my own changes and still get the latest from them, with almost
zero trouble merging.
* Developers are constantly offering help and advice on a web-forum.
http://webtrees.net even has an online demo you can try out.
--
Wes Groleau
Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html
Wes Groleau
Jan 7, 2012, 9:00:45 PM1/7/12
to
On 01-07-2012 20:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
there's an internet connection.
--
Wes Groleau
Women and men’s pasts
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1484
Steve Hayes
Jan 7, 2012, 10:32:56 PM1/7/12
to
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:00:45 -0500, Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
wrote:
>On 01-07-2012 20:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
>> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
>
>I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>there's an internet connection.
And when you die and can no longer pay for the hosting, or when the hosting
company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
wrote:
>On 01-07-2012 20:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
>> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
>> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
>
>I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>there's an internet connection.
company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
Bob Melson
Jan 8, 2012, 12:38:01 AM1/8/12
to
On Saturday 07 January 2012 20:32, Steve Hayes (haye...@telkomsa.net)
opined:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:00:45 -0500, Wes Groleau
> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>>On 01-07-2012 20:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
>>> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
>>
>>I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>>there's an internet connection.
>
> And when you die and can no longer pay for the hosting, or when the
> hosting company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
<snip>
Not necessarily so. With minimal tech savvy you can host it on your own
computer. So, assuming you have techie offspring or friends or somebody
or some institution to whom to pass your computer on your own passing,
your site need not go down so long as the computer lasts.
Webtrees, BTW, is a lineal descendant of phpGedView (pGV) and looks and
feels much like it. pGV is currently not being actively developed - some
project politics involved, I gather - and has lost several of its
programmers to the webtrees project.
WRT the original question, there are two alternatives I use and like:
gramps and GenealogyJ. gramps has been discussed to death here and
elsewhere and I have little to add to what's been said. GenealogyJ is a
java-based genealogy application that _ought_ to run wherever java can
exist. Look here http://genj.sourceforge.net/ for more details.
Sushi-stuffed Ol' Bob
opined:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:00:45 -0500, Wes Groleau
> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>>On 01-07-2012 20:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
>>> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
>>
>>I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>>there's an internet connection.
>
> And when you die and can no longer pay for the hosting, or when the
> hosting company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
Not necessarily so. With minimal tech savvy you can host it on your own
computer. So, assuming you have techie offspring or friends or somebody
or some institution to whom to pass your computer on your own passing,
your site need not go down so long as the computer lasts.
Webtrees, BTW, is a lineal descendant of phpGedView (pGV) and looks and
feels much like it. pGV is currently not being actively developed - some
project politics involved, I gather - and has lost several of its
programmers to the webtrees project.
WRT the original question, there are two alternatives I use and like:
gramps and GenealogyJ. gramps has been discussed to death here and
elsewhere and I have little to add to what's been said. GenealogyJ is a
java-based genealogy application that _ought_ to run wherever java can
exist. Look here http://genj.sourceforge.net/ for more details.
Sushi-stuffed Ol' Bob
pblair
Jan 8, 2012, 1:23:02 AM1/8/12
to
I recently did a demo of a hosted system to a bunch of family tree
enthusiasts. We discussed the pluses and minuses of this type of
sharing family data, and I offered to help anyone set up a system. I
got no takers. Must have been a lousy demo!
For the more computer literate, hosting is a breeze, but not so for
the other 99% of the community, who want to research, not be a
sysadmin sort of person.
PGV/webtrees are quite complex, and visually not at all well designed,
webtrees replicating most of the poor ergonomics of PGV. I know Wes is
a serious contributor to WT and I respect his views, but he's in a
special group. The greater unwashed just don't want to go there.
Paul
enthusiasts. We discussed the pluses and minuses of this type of
sharing family data, and I offered to help anyone set up a system. I
got no takers. Must have been a lousy demo!
For the more computer literate, hosting is a breeze, but not so for
the other 99% of the community, who want to research, not be a
sysadmin sort of person.
PGV/webtrees are quite complex, and visually not at all well designed,
webtrees replicating most of the poor ergonomics of PGV. I know Wes is
a serious contributor to WT and I respect his views, but he's in a
special group. The greater unwashed just don't want to go there.
Paul
Wes Groleau
Jan 8, 2012, 1:34:08 AM1/8/12
to
On 01-07-2012 22:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:00:45 -0500, Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01-07-2012 20:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
>>> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
>>
>> I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>> there's an internet connection.
>
> And when you die and can no longer pay for the hosting, or when the hosting
> company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
Just like when your hard drive dies. But then of course, you have a
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:00:45 -0500, Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 01-07-2012 20:58, Wes Groleau wrote:
>>> * Your data is password protected on a website that _you_ control
>>> (unless you want someone else to control it for you).
>>
>> I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>> there's an internet connection.
>
> And when you die and can no longer pay for the hosting, or when the hosting
> company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
backup, unlike 90% of the people out there. And heirs who won't wipe
the computer and sell it when you die.
I have a complete copy of my entire site on my Mac. Takes me two
mouse-clicks to update my local copy on my Mac from the SVN server. My
SVN client automatically merges my changes with theirs. On the rare
occasion (one in a hundred?) that I have touched the same line of code
that they did, it flags the file for me to examine.
Then a one-line command compares the updated local copy with the server
and uploads anything that has changed.
I also periodically have the site regenerate GEDCOM which I download to
my computer. When I die, unless I figure out how to prevent it, pffft,
out goes everything on my computer AND its backup drive. And the
website will go too, unless I have identified someone to take it over.
However, some subset of the data will live on in the files of people who
have copied from me. My challenge is for those copies to be of higher
quality thn the CRAP they might otherwise copy from.
If you don't like maintaining data online, then don't do it. It suits
me. I'm not going to bash FTM, or Legacy, or anything else I haven't
tried. But webtrees is better for me than anything else I have tried.
To each his own.
--
Wes Groleau
“What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing;
it also depends on what kind of person you are.”
-- C.S.Lewis
Wes Groleau
Jan 8, 2012, 1:51:48 AM1/8/12
to
On 01-08-2012 00:38, Bob Melson wrote:
> Webtrees, BTW, is a lineal descendant of phpGedView (pGV) and looks and
> feels much like it. pGV is currently not being actively developed - some
The "family resemblance" is still quite apparent, yet there have been
> Webtrees, BTW, is a lineal descendant of phpGedView (pGV) and looks and
> feels much like it. pGV is currently not being actively developed - some
some very significant improvements. Not the least of which is
efficiency. PGV was greatly slowed down by its need to support five
different database systems. Every one of these databases has valuable
features, but portability means you can only take advantage of what's
common to all of them.
> project politics involved, I gather - and has lost several of its
> programmers to the webtrees project.
other things and hasn't much time to work on it. PGV is hosted on
SourceForge. What triggered the branch is that SourceForge made some
policy changes that some people felt were inimical to their commitment
to open source, and so their consciences would no longer permit them to
contribute to projects on SourceForge.
PGV is not dead. It is still changing, but much more slowly. Those of
us that are on webtrees feel that the branching has allowed some
improvements that might not have even been considered otherwise. But
that doesn't mean there is any animosity.
--
Wes Groleau
Free speech has its limits
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=99
Don Kirkman
Jan 8, 2012, 2:01:57 AM1/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:34:08 -0500, Wes Groleau
--
Don
dons...@charter.net
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>On 01-07-2012 22:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:00:45 -0500, Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
>> wrote:
>>> I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>>> there's an internet connection.
>> And when you die and can no longer pay for the hosting, or when the hosting
>> company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
>Just like when your hard drive dies. But then of course, you have a
>backup, unlike 90% of the people out there. And heirs who won't wipe
>the computer and sell it when you die.
Or what may be worse, sell it without wiping it. :-)
>On 01-07-2012 22:32, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 21:00:45 -0500, Wes Groleau<Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
>> wrote:
>>> I meant to point out this means you can log in and make updates wherever
>>> there's an internet connection.
>> And when you die and can no longer pay for the hosting, or when the hosting
>> company dies, pffffft, out goes your data.
>Just like when your hard drive dies. But then of course, you have a
>backup, unlike 90% of the people out there. And heirs who won't wipe
>the computer and sell it when you die.
--
Don
dons...@charter.net
Wes Groleau
Jan 8, 2012, 2:04:02 AM1/8/12
to
On 01-08-2012 01:23, pblair wrote:
> PGV/webtrees are quite complex, and visually not at all well designed,
> webtrees replicating most of the poor ergonomics of PGV. I know Wes is
That is definitely one of the drawbacks to both of these, although I
> PGV/webtrees are quite complex, and visually not at all well designed,
> webtrees replicating most of the poor ergonomics of PGV. I know Wes is
disagree with the word "most" webtrees has made some definite progress
in that regard. But it will probably never match the glitz of
commercial products, or sites like Geni.com. But glitz doesn't
necessarily equate to usefulness. Microsoft has been proving that for
decades. (And unfortunately, it looks like Apple is starting to go that
way, too.)
I have the same inability as Paul in getting relatives interested in
using webtrees. But then most of them aren't interested in using
ANYTHING. And the few who are interested in genealogy are using
programs that look good but aren't capable of collaboration.
So which is worse, a program that can't support collaboration,
or one that can which people won't use?
Maybe it's not the program, though. Maybe it's me. Webtrees and PGV
both have users who aren't technical. And one of the webtrees fans
has a site with hundreds of members that actually login frequently and a
couple of dozen how actually add/update data.
Anyway, figure out what your goals are, and then see what programs
accomplish those goals.
--
Wes Groleau
Unusual ways of learning?
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=96
pblair
Jan 8, 2012, 5:16:25 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 8, 6:04 pm, Wes Groleau <Groleau+n...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 01-08-2012 01:23, pblair wrote:
>
> > PGV/webtrees are quite complex, and visually not at all well designed,
> > webtrees replicating most of the poor ergonomics of PGV. I know Wes is
>
> That is definitely one of the drawbacks to both of these, although I
> disagree with the word "most" webtrees has made some definite progress
> in that regard. But it will probably never match the glitz of
> commercial products, or sites like Geni.com. But glitz doesn't
> necessarily equate to usefulness. Microsoft has been proving that for
> decades. (And unfortunately, it looks like Apple is starting to go that
> way, too.)
>
> I have the same inability as Paul in getting relatives interested in
> using webtrees. But then most of them aren't interested in using
> ANYTHING. And the few who are interested in genealogy are using
> programs that look good but aren't capable of collaboration.
>
I sort of gave up for a while, but then decided to try The Next
> On 01-08-2012 01:23, pblair wrote:
>
> > PGV/webtrees are quite complex, and visually not at all well designed,
> > webtrees replicating most of the poor ergonomics of PGV. I know Wes is
>
> That is definitely one of the drawbacks to both of these, although I
> disagree with the word "most" webtrees has made some definite progress
> in that regard. But it will probably never match the glitz of
> commercial products, or sites like Geni.com. But glitz doesn't
> necessarily equate to usefulness. Microsoft has been proving that for
> decades. (And unfortunately, it looks like Apple is starting to go that
> way, too.)
>
> I have the same inability as Paul in getting relatives interested in
> using webtrees. But then most of them aren't interested in using
> ANYTHING. And the few who are interested in genealogy are using
> programs that look good but aren't capable of collaboration.
>
Generation, another server-side product. It is less complicated than
PGV or WT, and suddenly I had 20 family users. I didn't really push
it, but suddenly I was in business. Beats me....
Paul
Wes Groleau
Jan 8, 2012, 11:33:10 PM1/8/12
to
On 01-08-2012 05:16, pblair wrote:
> I sort of gave up for a while, but then decided to try The Next
> Generation, another server-side product. It is less complicated than
> PGV or WT, and suddenly I had 20 family users. I didn't really push
> it, but suddenly I was in business. Beats me....
I tried it and liked it a little, but liked PGV better.
> I sort of gave up for a while, but then decided to try The Next
> Generation, another server-side product. It is less complicated than
> PGV or WT, and suddenly I had 20 family users. I didn't really push
> it, but suddenly I was in business. Beats me....
Maybe I could use TNG till they're hooked and then switch to webtrees.
Or is that an illegal bait-and-switch? :-)
--
Wes Groleau
First Language Acquisition observed up—close & personal
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett?itemid=1349
Wes Groleau
Jan 8, 2012, 11:35:00 PM1/8/12
to
hard-drive for the porn that isn't there. But if they find my
genealogy, and decide to preserve it, more power to them!
--
Wes Groleau
Common Sense
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=1184
pblair
Jan 9, 2012, 2:25:45 PM1/9/12
to
- it's what *they* like, in this shared world.
Paul
Wes Groleau
Jan 9, 2012, 8:58:28 PM1/9/12
to
On 01-09-2012 14:25, pblair wrote:
> In the end, and with respect, it doesn't matter one jot what you like
> - it's what*they* like, in this shared world.
> In the end, and with respect, it doesn't matter one jot what you like
To a point. I liked the appearance of TNG better than PGV, but I didn't
want to do without some of PGV's other features.
By the way, you mentioned the "clunky" user interface. webtrees is
still a little bit clunky for editing, but it's much improved. Many
items are "in-place editing" and the plan is to do that to the rest of
them. If you have edit rights, you just click on what you want to edit,
and it turns into a control for changing it, withoug changing the rest
of the page. But some pages still have pop-ups.
And I have seen a few sites that are actually looking pretty good.
Take a look at
http://our-families.info
or
http://myarnolds.com
My own, <http://UniGen.us/webtrees>, is not quite as good. I borrowed a
lot from the first one above but I still need to put much more work into it.
--
Wes Groleau
Scribd Copyright Violations
http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1529
Ken Ozanne
Jan 10, 2012, 4:34:18 PM1/10/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Wes,
I summoned up the interest to look at your three examples and was not
particularly impressed. (Though the Arnold one has some interest.)
I got in to the our-families site and clicked on pedigrees (or pedigree
charts or something like that). The site promptly crashed.
Yours took me to downloads but nothing seemed to download and so I got
nowhere.
Only the Arnold site gave me a real chance to do anything and I may
persevere with it for a little. As yet I have seen nothing in it that is
better than TNG.
Best,
Ken
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:58:28 -0500
> From: Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
> Subject: Re: An alternative to FTM 2010?
> To: gen...@rootsweb.com
> Message-ID: <jeg605$nu4$1...@dont-email.me>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
I summoned up the interest to look at your three examples and was not
particularly impressed. (Though the Arnold one has some interest.)
I got in to the our-families site and clicked on pedigrees (or pedigree
charts or something like that). The site promptly crashed.
Yours took me to downloads but nothing seemed to download and so I got
nowhere.
Only the Arnold site gave me a real chance to do anything and I may
persevere with it for a little. As yet I have seen nothing in it that is
better than TNG.
Best,
Ken
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:58:28 -0500
> From: Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org>
> Subject: Re: An alternative to FTM 2010?
> To: gen...@rootsweb.com
> Message-ID: <jeg605$nu4$1...@dont-email.me>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Wes Groleau
Jan 10, 2012, 9:57:52 PM1/10/12
to
On 01-10-2012 16:34, Ken Ozanne wrote:
> Yours took me to downloads but nothing seemed to download and so I got
Downloads? One of us must have typed the link wrong.
> Yours took me to downloads but nothing seemed to download and so I got
--
Wes Groleau
People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
— Peg Bracken
Wes Groleau
Jan 10, 2012, 10:00:31 PM1/10/12
to
On 01-10-2012 16:34, Ken Ozanne wrote:
> Only the Arnold site gave me a real chance to do anything and I may
> persevere with it for a little. As yet I have seen nothing in it that is
> better than TNG.
I haven't seen TNG in a LONG time. When I had it, it definitely
> persevere with it for a little. As yet I have seen nothing in it that is
> better than TNG.
_looked_ better than PGV. But PGV had certain features that I wanted
and TNG didn't. I would be surprised if TNG hadn't come a long way
since then, since webtrees and PGV have.
pblair
Jan 10, 2012, 11:40:55 PM1/10/12
to
webtrees is a lot more advanced than TNG - but having said that, it
was far too advanced for my family to use. TNG was a comfortable fit,
given that most of my users want 'look ups' and don't really want or
need more complexity. There's probably a place for webtrees 'lite'
Paul
singhals
Jan 11, 2012, 9:51:45 AM1/11/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
popping up as an "easter egg" once an hour: not everyone
/needs/ complexity.
While there are uses for, say, calculus, you don't actually
need it to count the coins in your pocket. Nor do you need
a BSc in Chemistry to follow the instructions on a box of
cake mix. Ought not need a BSc in IT to use your genealogy
program.
There used to be (still is?) a cartoon panel in the US, Rube
Goldberg. Rube was an inventor -- he invented all sorts of
complex devices to do something easily achieved by hand
(like the one about getting the egg into the boiling water).
Computer programs ought not resemble a Rube Goldberg cartoon.
Better a cousin uses an inferior, less flexible, product and
GET HIS DATA IN WRITING, than he quits because the superior
product frustrates him with its flexibility. There's always
someone who can move the content of the inferior product to
a superior one; but an _empty_ database no matter how
superior the design is non-transferable.
Cheryl
Joe Makowiec
Jan 11, 2012, 1:51:43 PM1/11/12
to
On 11 Jan 2012 in soc.genealogy.computing, singhals wrote:
> There used to be (still is?) a cartoon panel in the US, Rube
> Goldberg.
Rube died in 1970, aged in his late 80s. I don't recall seeing any new
> There used to be (still is?) a cartoon panel in the US, Rube
> Goldberg.
cartoons from him in my younger years (which overlapped Rube by a few),
and AFAIK nobody took over his strips. There are still active 'Rube
Goldberg Machine' Contests.
http://www.rubegoldberg.com/
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
singhals
Jan 11, 2012, 2:28:15 PM1/11/12
to gen...@rootsweb.com
Joe Makowiec wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2012 in soc.genealogy.computing, singhals wrote:
>
>> There used to be (still is?) a cartoon panel in the US, Rube
>> Goldberg.
>
> Rube died in 1970, aged in his late 80s. I don't recall seeing any new
> cartoons from him in my younger years (which overlapped Rube by a few),
> and AFAIK nobody took over his strips. There are still active 'Rube
> Goldberg Machine' Contests.
>
> http://www.rubegoldberg.com/
>
My Grandad (1902-1964) loved Rube's machines and loved
> On 11 Jan 2012 in soc.genealogy.computing, singhals wrote:
>
>> There used to be (still is?) a cartoon panel in the US, Rube
>> Goldberg.
>
> Rube died in 1970, aged in his late 80s. I don't recall seeing any new
> cartoons from him in my younger years (which overlapped Rube by a few),
> and AFAIK nobody took over his strips. There are still active 'Rube
> Goldberg Machine' Contests.
>
> http://www.rubegoldberg.com/
>
explaining them to me. I suspect all those explanations are
why I tend to like the KISS approach.
Cheryl
0 new messages