Simon and Jane, Thank you for your emails and advice, I'll wait until March for version 5 :-) Best wishes Sue -------------------------------------------------- From: "Simon Orde" <simon-fhu@family-historian.co.uk> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:23 AM To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > Sue > > You can always upgrade any version of Family Historian by buying the > latest > full version. That will automatically detect your previous version (any > previous version) and automatically upgrade you. We do sell upgrade > products, but these are only for people who are wanting to do a > 'single-step' upgrade from the previous version to the current version > (e.g. > we now offer a v3 to v4 upgrade, and shortly we will have upgrades > available > from v4 to v5), and the only advantage they have is that - for single step > upgrades only - they're cheaper. > > If you are wanting to upgrade more than one step (e.g. from v2 to v5) you > should buy the full version of v5 when it's out (it's due out in March). > Or if you prefer you can buy v4 now from one of the resellers who are > offering a free upgrade to v5 when it's out, for people who buy v4 now > (see > our website at www.family-historian.co.uk for a list of resellers offering > this). Hope that makes sense. > > Simon Orde > List Administrator & Family Historian designer > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sue" <sue66uk@ntlworld.com> > To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:07 PM > Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > > >> Peter >> >> Thanks for your reply. That sounds reasonable and more cost effective >> than >> purchasing the upgrades first. I am assuming going from v2.3.5. to v5 >> would work without having to upgrade to v 3, then v4 first, and more >> importantly without hitches and glitches? I've got a lot of info on my >> version and wouldn't want to lose it or scramble it by going straight to >> v5. >> >> Best wishes >> Sue >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "P.Evans" <p.evans1@btinternet.com> >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:28 PM >> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> >> Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 >> >>> Sue >>> The latest version of FH is v5 which will be available in March. >>> To get from v2.3.5 to v5 you would have to buy the upgrade to v3 then >>> the >>> upgrade to v4 and then to v5. Therefore I think you would be better off >>> to >>> simply buy a full version 5 when it is released. >>> >>> >>> Peter E >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >>> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I thought Id save a copy of my project folder to an external hard drive. I keep everything on Dropbox. There, my master folder is named ‘Family History’ and this contains all my FH projects and media and other relevant files. I saved the master folder. After the saving process - which seemed to go well- I checked that all had been saved correctly only to find one complete project missing. Only one project hadn’t been copied- no evidence whatsoever of it in the project list! Several others had been copied. I then checked to see that all was well with my FH projects on my computer. It wasnt! On opening the project window that same one project name was missing. After a few moments of panic I reassured myself as I found that the backup copy was functional and the media stored. I then went Project window > More tasks > Gedcom file tasks to find that the ‘missing’ project was listed 3 times! I tried to open them only to find that two of them would not open - ‘file path not valid’. However one could be opened and all, including media, seemed fine again. I pressed ‘Save’ in the hope that I would ensure that it was a saved project and when it was open I went File > Project Window and saw that the “current project” was listed correctly ( i.e. the missing file’s name). However, on reopening the FH program, the file was still unlisted- missing!! Please- how can I reinstate this project? Easy steps please!! Thanks Stewart

The counties that had names changed had it done for administration purposes. As far as I am concerned the old county boundaries and names are historical boundaries and will always remain so and I continue to use them even after the 1974 admin changes. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Nick Serpell <nick.serpell@serpell.org> Sender: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:52:13 To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Reply-To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Which County? I always use what was the official name at the time of the event. Therefore a birth in Lambeth in the mid 1800s is in Surrey not in London. The same would apply to an event in Bournemouth which used to be in Hampshire but is now in Dorset. I don't see what the alternative is. Putting past events into the context of modern boundaries is technically incorrect as the areas did not exist in that form at the time. Nick Nick Serpell nick.serpell@serpell.org On 21 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Shelagh wrote: > Original query from Marlene was " When filling in census returns with > 'Ancestral Sources,' sometimes the parishes have moved boundaries > and are now in adjacent counties. Occasionally the county is completely > wrong! > Please can anyone tell me how I should be recording these? > "As is" or with the present day county?" > > Some of the new "counties" such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester are in > fact administrative counties and not shire counties. My personal preference > is for the shire county, and where places have moved from one to another I > have used the county of the period. EG Widnes and Warrington are now in > Cheshire, however they used to be in Lancashire. If the event I am recording > occurred in Warrington Lancashire that is what I put, if the event happened > last year I would record Warrington Cheshire. I will not record Liverpool as > being in Merseyside as that is an administrative county, whereas it is still > in the County Palatine of Lancaster. > > What do others do? > > > Shelagh > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I always use what was the official name at the time of the event. Therefore a birth in Lambeth in the mid 1800s is in Surrey not in London. The same would apply to an event in Bournemouth which used to be in Hampshire but is now in Dorset. I don't see what the alternative is. Putting past events into the context of modern boundaries is technically incorrect as the areas did not exist in that form at the time. Nick Nick Serpell nick.serpell@serpell.org On 21 Feb 2012, at 18:20, Shelagh wrote: > Original query from Marlene was " When filling in census returns with > 'Ancestral Sources,' sometimes the parishes have moved boundaries > and are now in adjacent counties. Occasionally the county is completely > wrong! > Please can anyone tell me how I should be recording these? > "As is" or with the present day county?" > > Some of the new "counties" such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester are in > fact administrative counties and not shire counties. My personal preference > is for the shire county, and where places have moved from one to another I > have used the county of the period. EG Widnes and Warrington are now in > Cheshire, however they used to be in Lancashire. If the event I am recording > occurred in Warrington Lancashire that is what I put, if the event happened > last year I would record Warrington Cheshire. I will not record Liverpool as > being in Merseyside as that is an administrative county, whereas it is still > in the County Palatine of Lancaster. > > What do others do? > > > Shelagh > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Original query from Marlene was " When filling in census returns with 'Ancestral Sources,' sometimes the parishes have moved boundaries and are now in adjacent counties. Occasionally the county is completely wrong! Please can anyone tell me how I should be recording these? "As is" or with the present day county?" Some of the new "counties" such as Merseyside and Greater Manchester are in fact administrative counties and not shire counties. My personal preference is for the shire county, and where places have moved from one to another I have used the county of the period. EG Widnes and Warrington are now in Cheshire, however they used to be in Lancashire. If the event I am recording occurred in Warrington Lancashire that is what I put, if the event happened last year I would record Warrington Cheshire. I will not record Liverpool as being in Merseyside as that is an administrative county, whereas it is still in the County Palatine of Lancaster. What do others do? Shelagh

I record them "As is". The County boarders could change again in the future ! -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Marlene James Sent: 21 February 2012 17:28 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] Which County? Hi List, When filling in census returns with 'Ancestral Sources,' sometimes the parishes have moved boundaries and are now in adjacent counties. Occasionally the county is completely wrong! Please can anyone tell me how I should be recording these? "As is" or with the present day county? Regards Marlene ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi List, When filling in census returns with 'Ancestral Sources,' sometimes the parishes have moved boundaries and are now in adjacent counties. Occasionally the county is completely wrong! Please can anyone tell me how I should be recording these? "As is" or with the present day county? Regards Marlene

thanks for the advise.i will use the magnifier in docked mode running across the top of the screen.i aslo found on windows 7 that if you go to start>control panel>then type in display> then press display you can change the font and icon size. On 21 February 2012 09:13, Ed Thomas <cavasta@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > It's probably not what you're after but there's a magnifying facility in > Windows XP (I don't know if later operating systems have it). In XP, click > on the Start menu icon and go into Programs > Accessories > Accessibility > > Magnifier. Have a play around with it. > > Regards > > Ed > > > WJ> hi i have managed to change the font size but i cant seem to change > WJ> the tiny icons on the focus window and property box. is it pssible to > do > this. > WJ> (family historian 4.1) thank you > > WJ> -- > WJ> john > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- john

Hi I have been trying to create a column in the records window which shows a second relationship of an individual to the root. Creating the column is not the problem but I cannot work out the expression required. I would very much appreciate some kindly person pointing me in the right direction. Graham Thorpe

Sue You can always upgrade any version of Family Historian by buying the latest full version. That will automatically detect your previous version (any previous version) and automatically upgrade you. We do sell upgrade products, but these are only for people who are wanting to do a 'single-step' upgrade from the previous version to the current version (e.g. we now offer a v3 to v4 upgrade, and shortly we will have upgrades available from v4 to v5), and the only advantage they have is that - for single step upgrades only - they're cheaper. If you are wanting to upgrade more than one step (e.g. from v2 to v5) you should buy the full version of v5 when it's out (it's due out in March). Or if you prefer you can buy v4 now from one of the resellers who are offering a free upgrade to v5 when it's out, for people who buy v4 now (see our website at www.family-historian.co.uk for a list of resellers offering this). Hope that makes sense. Simon Orde List Administrator & Family Historian designer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sue" <sue66uk@ntlworld.com> To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > Peter > > Thanks for your reply. That sounds reasonable and more cost effective > than > purchasing the upgrades first. I am assuming going from v2.3.5. to v5 > would work without having to upgrade to v 3, then v4 first, and more > importantly without hitches and glitches? I've got a lot of info on my > version and wouldn't want to lose it or scramble it by going straight to > v5. > > Best wishes > Sue > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "P.Evans" <p.evans1@btinternet.com> > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:28 PM > To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > >> Sue >> The latest version of FH is v5 which will be available in March. >> To get from v2.3.5 to v5 you would have to buy the upgrade to v3 then the >> upgrade to v4 and then to v5. Therefore I think you would be better off >> to >> simply buy a full version 5 when it is released. >> >> >> Peter E >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

John, Most software and web sites are currently designed for a screen using the standard 1024 x 768 resolution in which case text and icons are of a reasonable size. If you use a higher screen resolution such as 1280 x 960 or 1360 x 1024 everything on the screen will look smaller. Now, if you really need to read larger text, icons and buttons then try a resolution of 800 x 600. Regards, Patrick Remy-Maillet Bribie Island, Queensland, Australia Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 4:18:59 AM, you wrote: WJ> hi i have managed to change the font size but i cant seem to change the WJ> tiny icons on the focus window and property box. is it pssible to do this. WJ> (family historian 4.1) thank you WJ> -- WJ> john ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It's probably not what you're after but there's a magnifying facility in Windows XP (I don't know if later operating systems have it). In XP, click on the Start menu icon and go into Programs > Accessories > Accessibility > Magnifier. Have a play around with it. Regards Ed WJ> hi i have managed to change the font size but i cant seem to change WJ> the tiny icons on the focus window and property box. is it pssible to do this. WJ> (family historian 4.1) thank you WJ> -- WJ> john ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I have added some extra information to the Knowledge Base with regard to versions and upgrading which can be found at http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:about#how_to_upgrade -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

A big thank you to everyone this evening who replied to my query. I wasn't aware of the FHUG so will take a look there before trying to contact Simon. Best wishes Sue -------------------------------------------------- From: "Beryl & Mike Tate" <post@tatewise.co.uk> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:51 PM To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > Sue, > > Are you aware of the FHUG http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi (free > registration) where you could also ask this question, and > may find other useful advice, free utilities, etc. > > Regards, Mike Tate > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sue > Sent: 20 February 2012 21:08 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > > Peter > > Thanks for your reply. That sounds reasonable and more cost effective > than > purchasing the upgrades first. I am assuming going from v2.3.5. to v5 > would work without having to upgrade to v 3, then v4 first, and more > importantly without hitches and glitches? I've got a lot of info on my > version and wouldn't want to lose it or scramble it by going straight to > v5. > > Best wishes > Sue > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "P.Evans" <p.evans1@btinternet.com> > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:28 PM > To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > >> Sue >> The latest version of FH is v5 which will be available in March. >> To get from v2.3.5 to v5 you would have to buy the upgrade to v3 then the >> upgrade to v4 and then to v5. Therefore I think you would be better off >> to >> simply buy a full version 5 when it is released. >> >> >> Peter E >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I don't believe it is possible to change those icons within FH. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of WADE JOHN Sent: 20 February 2012 18:19 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] learning curve hi i have managed to change the font size but i cant seem to change the tiny icons on the focus window and property box. is it pssible to do this. (family historian 4.1) thank you -- john

I presume you mean Ancestral Sources, and if so, its preferred method is the one you propose to adopt. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Michael Jackson Sent: 20 February 2012 19:56 To: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Sources and Citations Hello Thank you all for your input to my query. I was surprised at the difference of opinions it raised. At the moment I am on a learning curve and the views expressed have helped me to further understand how the sources and citations work. I think I will opt for creating Sources for each of the sources I use: one Source Record for each census return, which would be a source for all the members of my family on it; one Baptism Source Record for each Certificate, which would be a source for the family address, mother’s maiden name etc However I know nothing out Ancestry Records and will have to look into that – it might make me change my way of thinking. Michael

Sue, Are you aware of the FHUG http://www.fhug.org.uk/cgi-bin/index.cgi (free registration) where you could also ask this question, and may find other useful advice, free utilities, etc. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Sue Sent: 20 February 2012 21:08 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 Peter Thanks for your reply. That sounds reasonable and more cost effective than purchasing the upgrades first. I am assuming going from v2.3.5. to v5 would work without having to upgrade to v 3, then v4 first, and more importantly without hitches and glitches? I've got a lot of info on my version and wouldn't want to lose it or scramble it by going straight to v5. Best wishes Sue -------------------------------------------------- From: "P.Evans" <p.evans1@btinternet.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:28 PM To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > Sue > The latest version of FH is v5 which will be available in March. > To get from v2.3.5 to v5 you would have to buy the upgrade to v3 then the > upgrade to v4 and then to v5. Therefore I think you would be better off to > simply buy a full version 5 when it is released. > > > Peter E >

Peter Thanks for your reply. That sounds reasonable and more cost effective than purchasing the upgrades first. I am assuming going from v2.3.5. to v5 would work without having to upgrade to v 3, then v4 first, and more importantly without hitches and glitches? I've got a lot of info on my version and wouldn't want to lose it or scramble it by going straight to v5. Best wishes Sue -------------------------------------------------- From: "P.Evans" <p.evans1@btinternet.com> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 8:28 PM To: <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [FHU] Upgrade from version 2.3.5 > Sue > The latest version of FH is v5 which will be available in March. > To get from v2.3.5 to v5 you would have to buy the upgrade to v3 then the > upgrade to v4 and then to v5. Therefore I think you would be better off to > simply buy a full version 5 when it is released. > > > Peter E > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Sue The latest version of FH is v5 which will be available in March. To get from v2.3.5 to v5 you would have to buy the upgrade to v3 then the upgrade to v4 and then to v5. Therefore I think you would be better off to simply buy a full version 5 when it is released. Peter E

Hello Thank you all for your input to my query. I was surprised at the difference of opinions it raised. At the moment I am on a learning curve and the views expressed have helped me to further understand how the sources and citations work. I think I will opt for creating Sources for each of the sources I use: one Source Record for each census return, which would be a source for all the members of my family on it; one Baptism Source Record for each Certificate, which would be a source for the family address, mother’s maiden name etc However I know nothing out Ancestry Records and will have to look into that – it might make me change my way of thinking. Michael