I just found out today that my wife, while messing around on e-Bay, bid fifty cents for FO6 on CD. . . . and got it. I am not sure what she wanted it for, since we currently use 9.02 and are anxiously awaiting FO10 (and also have the old CD's for 7 and 8), but now we have FO6 as well for a half buck plus postage. It's amazing what you can find on e-Bay <g>. David MSgt David E. Cann, USMC (Ret'd) Phone: 540-372-7868 Fax: 540-372-7707 E-mail: decann@infi.net HOME PAGES Family: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann Genealogy: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann/genealogy I'm a RootsWeb Sponsor. Ask me how you can be one, too. Researching Bradford, Brewer, Cann, Cashatt, Ewing, Fitch, Linson, Markley, Merkle, Oliver, Redkey, Schottler, Shockey and Vance surnames and any others related by birth, marriage or adoption.
This is a little off topic, even for me, but I have to ask David. Are you bragin or complainin? Alfred ======== ----- Original Message ----- From: "David E. Cann" <decann@infi.net> > I just found out today that my wife, while messing around on e-Bay, bid > fifty cents for FO6 on CD. . . . and got it. ------SNIP------ > David
Excellent point, Don. One that has troubled me when swapping a GEDCOM between two programs for the desired features you mention. How do I handle it? I frequently use a spell checker in the final electronic media: Wor/Win. I also wish the tools provided with formatting notes were a little more W/W or W/P compatible. --Derick At 04:29 PM 5/21/01, Don Cook wrote: >Dear Listers and Bruce, > >For years the question of which is the best genealogy software has arisen. >For years someone has always responded that several have strong points and >that they in fact use GEDCOM to transfer data between them to take advantage >of special reporting features among them. > >I have stuck with FOW for years (now using 9.02); the biggest reason being >the ease of use and speed. I decided to try to transfer my base to another >program, namely PAF, to see if some of the reports may be more appealing. >Without getting into specifics, I did find several report features that I >liked, but obviously encountered some loses (and, strangely, some gains) in >the transfer. > >Study showed that with some minor changes to the standards that I use when I >enter the data in FOW, most of the problems can be worked around. One >however befuddled me for days. Long text fields, i.e. Notes, Places, Source >Titles, etc., would get altered no matter whether I used "Preserve Word >Wrap" on the GEDCOM export from FO or not. > >Checking "Preserve Word Wrap" results in the use of the CONC continuation >sub-tag and the resulting lose of spacing between words exactly as described >in the following paragraph. (This paragraph is an exact extract from the >GEDCOM 5.5 Standard now published on the LDS web site.) > >CONC {CONCATENATION}: = >An indicator that additional data belongs to the superior value. The >information from the CONC value is to be connected to the value of the >superior preceding line without a space and without a carriage return and/or >new line character. Values that are split for a CONC tag must always be >split at a non-space. If the value is split on a space the space will be >lost when concatenation takes place. This is because of the treatment that >spaces get as a GEDCOM delimiter, many GEDCOM values are trimmed of trailing >spaces and some systems look for the first non-space starting after the tag >to determine the beginning of the value. > >(Note that un-checking "PWW" results in the use of the CONT continuation >sub-tag and the importing of the data to PAF as unwrapped lines about 70 >characters long. This is in accordance with the standard for that tag.) > >My question is two-fold: >1) How are all of you who do this sort of thing coping with this sort of >issue? >2) What, Bruce, would it take to get it to work right? > >Thanks for your attention, >Don docooker@utah-inter.net > > > > > > >==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== >PLEASE send personal replies and "THANK YOU" message privately. All >messages on this list are archived and archiving takes up valuable space. > >============================== >Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access to the #1 >Source for Family History Online. Go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/subscribe/subscribetrial1y.asp?sourcecode=F11HB
Wayne, Alfred, et al! I am indeed getting the list in digest form. And believe me -- getting ALL those FO taglines is a real mess. I opted out of the "L" version of the list because when I go away for a day or so, there are SO MANY emails to sort through, it isn't even funny. In digest form, I just look at the message index and read the ones that interest me. All in one email. And yes, some email programs (such as AOL's webmail) do not handle it well. Anne Percival Kruszka "Remember me in the family tree -- My name, my days, my strife; Then I'll ride upon the wings of time And live an endless life" -- Goetsch
I have these for free to first taker 1) FOWIN 3.0 setup Disk 2) FOWIN 4.1A (disk was originally 4.0, but I was sent an upgrade to 4.1a copied over the 4.0 disk as that disk was damaged. 3) FOWIN 5.0 setup disk 1. I do not know if there was a disk 2 or not. If so I do not have it. All on 1.44 floppy disks. Send address Earnie ----- Original Message ----- From: <JTift@aol.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:58 PM Subject: [FO] Early Versions > In a message dated 05/21/2001 2:10:36 PM Central Daylight Time, > FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > > > There isn't a 2.0 for Windows version anyway. The Windows version skipped > > from 1.x to 3.x to get in step with the DOS version (useless trivia <g>). > > > > I would love to find a 5.0 for > > > > > > . > > > > The last DOS version was 3.x, so you'll have a hard time finding a DOS 5 or > > 6 > > <g>. > > > > > Bruce, thanks for jumping in (it is always good to hear from you). Now I > shall stop looking for a newer version than 3.0 to run on my little antique > 386 DOS notebook. > > Jane Tift > (sitting in Tuscola waiting for the release of version 10.) > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > PLEASE remove as much of the Original Message as possible when replying to a List Posting. Include only that part of the original message important to your reply. > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >
In a message dated 05/21/2001 2:10:36 PM Central Daylight Time, FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: > There isn't a 2.0 for Windows version anyway. The Windows version skipped > from 1.x to 3.x to get in step with the DOS version (useless trivia <g>). > > I would love to find a 5.0 for > > > > . > > The last DOS version was 3.x, so you'll have a hard time finding a DOS 5 or > 6 > <g>. > > Bruce, thanks for jumping in (it is always good to hear from you). Now I shall stop looking for a newer version than 3.0 to run on my little antique 386 DOS notebook. Jane Tift (sitting in Tuscola waiting for the release of version 10.)
Dear Listers and Bruce, For years the question of which is the best genealogy software has arisen. For years someone has always responded that several have strong points and that they in fact use GEDCOM to transfer data between them to take advantage of special reporting features among them. I have stuck with FOW for years (now using 9.02); the biggest reason being the ease of use and speed. I decided to try to transfer my base to another program, namely PAF, to see if some of the reports may be more appealing. Without getting into specifics, I did find several report features that I liked, but obviously encountered some loses (and, strangely, some gains) in the transfer. Study showed that with some minor changes to the standards that I use when I enter the data in FOW, most of the problems can be worked around. One however befuddled me for days. Long text fields, i.e. Notes, Places, Source Titles, etc., would get altered no matter whether I used "Preserve Word Wrap" on the GEDCOM export from FO or not. Checking "Preserve Word Wrap" results in the use of the CONC continuation sub-tag and the resulting lose of spacing between words exactly as described in the following paragraph. (This paragraph is an exact extract from the GEDCOM 5.5 Standard now published on the LDS web site.) CONC {CONCATENATION}: = An indicator that additional data belongs to the superior value. The information from the CONC value is to be connected to the value of the superior preceding line without a space and without a carriage return and/or new line character. Values that are split for a CONC tag must always be split at a non-space. If the value is split on a space the space will be lost when concatenation takes place. This is because of the treatment that spaces get as a GEDCOM delimiter, many GEDCOM values are trimmed of trailing spaces and some systems look for the first non-space starting after the tag to determine the beginning of the value. (Note that un-checking "PWW" results in the use of the CONT continuation sub-tag and the importing of the data to PAF as unwrapped lines about 70 characters long. This is in accordance with the standard for that tag.) My question is two-fold: 1) How are all of you who do this sort of thing coping with this sort of issue? 2) What, Bruce, would it take to get it to work right? Thanks for your attention, Don docooker@utah-inter.net
Unsubscribe. Please no more. ----- Original Message ----- From: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:25 AM Subject: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D Digest V01 #170
In a message dated 5/19/2001 7:07:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time, JTift@aol.com writes: > Frances...I have a FO 2.0 floppy...but it is for DOS...I was not aware that > we had windows when the 2.0 came out. There isn't a 2.0 for Windows version anyways. The Windows version skipped from 1.x to 3.x to get in step with the DOS version (useless trivia <g>). I would love to find a 5.0 for > > . The last DOS version was 3.x, so you'll have a hard time finding a DOS 5 or 6 <g>. - Bruce http://formalsoft.com - Family Origins genealogy software http://family-reunion.com - Plan the perfect family reunion
I have version 3.0 for Windows and DOS. I do not know what was the last DOS version, but had thought it was ver 6 -- perhaps I am wrong --I do know that version 6 for Windows had both a 16 bit version for Windows 3.1 as well as the 32 bit one for Win95. M. Scheffler ----- Original Message ----- From: "Donovan Henderson" <donovanhenderson@email.msn.com> To: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 8:11 PM Subject: Re: [FO] Early versions > I have ver. 1.21, 2.0 and 2.5 all of which are DOS. Don't > have 3.0 which is also DOS. I believe 4.0 was the first > Windows application and I doubt DOS versions from 4.0 on > were produced. Could be wrong! Bruce could verify. > > Don > > -----Original Message----- > From: JTift@aol.com <JTift@aol.com> > To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Saturday, May 19, 2001 9:09 PM > Subject: [FO] Early versions > > > >In a message dated 05/19/2001 12:36:57 PM Central Daylight > Time, > >FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > > > > >> It is a long story but I would like to find a FOWIN2.0 > floppy. > >> > >> Frances - ncsdfrsd@juno.com > >> > > > >Frances...I have a FO 2.0 floppy...but it is for DOS...I > was not aware that > >we had windows when the 2.0 came out. I would love to find > a 5.0 for > >DOS...or a 6.0 for DOS... > > > >Jane Lindsey Tift > > > > > >==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > >The "Family Origins® Wish List" > http://formalsoft.com/wishlist.htm > >??? FAQ ??? -- http://www.graabek.com/fow/fofaq.html > > > >============================== > >Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > > > > > > ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== > Very basic Windows: http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/created4/COMPUTERBASICS.html > basic HTML: http://freepages.computers.rootsweb.com/~pasher/ > > ============================== > Join the RootsWeb WorldConnect Project: > Linking the world, one GEDCOM at a time. > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com >
This evening I tried to open FO and got two Codebase Error messages: error# -60 error # 90615 opening file file 4 open C:\MY DOCUMENTS\MAIN2 APP. DBF error# -935 error# 94001 null input Parameter unexpected d4 field I have tried opening via Windows Explorer, but no joy. Help, please? Gillian
I have my old diskette of version 3 (and it fit on ONE diskette <g>), and is marked "Family Origins for Windows," but I have no idea if it was the first one for Windows or not. I have no idea why I still have the diskette, probably because I am a packrat, but that's what it says. David *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 05/20/2001, at 5:22 PM, Donovan Henderson wrote: >I have ver. 1.21, 2.0 and 2.5 all of which are DOS. Don't >have 3.0 which is also DOS. I believe 4.0 was the first >Windows application and I doubt DOS versions from 4.0 on >were produced. Could be wrong! Bruce could verify. > >Don <clip> MSgt David E. Cann, USMC (Ret'd) Phone: 540-372-7868 Fax: 540-372-7707 E-mail: decann@infi.net Family home page: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann
"MMM" <mjmills@simplynet.net> wrote: >I am unable to download some of my backups from FO6 win95 into FO8 >win98. Has anyone had this problem? Is this a windows conflict or a >FO conflict? One of my three backups downloaded, the two didn't even >show on the disk in win98.. If you are trying to restore backups made by FO6 on a floppy disk and FO8 cannot see but one backup on the floppy then there probably isn't but one backup on that disk. Can't say why it isn't there. Maybe the disk wasn't big enough to hold more than one backup. Maybe you have the wrong disk. It may be necessary to go back to FO6 and redo the backups. Wayne League
"keatley" <keatley@clara.net> wrote: >This evening I tried to open FO and got two Codebase Error messages: Your database has most likely gotten corrupted. It is time to restore from your backup. But you cannot open FO because it is trying to open the last used database which is corrupted and that is causing it to crash. Is that the problem? In windows explorer, find the file named xxxx.fow where xxxx is the name of your database, and delete that file. (Perhaps its name is MAIN2 APP.FOW) That will allow FO to open and then you can restore the database from your backup. Wayne League
I have ver. 1.21, 2.0 and 2.5 all of which are DOS. Don't have 3.0 which is also DOS. I believe 4.0 was the first Windows application and I doubt DOS versions from 4.0 on were produced. Could be wrong! Bruce could verify. Don -----Original Message----- From: JTift@aol.com <JTift@aol.com> To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Saturday, May 19, 2001 9:09 PM Subject: [FO] Early versions >In a message dated 05/19/2001 12:36:57 PM Central Daylight Time, >FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-D-request@rootsweb.com writes: > > >> It is a long story but I would like to find a FOWIN2.0 floppy. >> >> Frances - ncsdfrsd@juno.com >> > >Frances...I have a FO 2.0 floppy...but it is for DOS...I was not aware that >we had windows when the 2.0 came out. I would love to find a 5.0 for >DOS...or a 6.0 for DOS... > >Jane Lindsey Tift > > >==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== >The "Family Origins® Wish List" http://formalsoft.com/wishlist.htm >??? FAQ ??? -- http://www.graabek.com/fow/fofaq.html > >============================== >Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp >
----- Original Message ----- From: "MMM" <mjmills@simplynet.net> > I am unable to download some of my backups from FO6 win95 into FO8 win98. Has anyone had this problem? Is this a windows conflict or a FO conflict? One of my three backups downloaded, the two didn't even show on the disk in win98.. > What server are you trying to download from? You usually download files from a server somewhere on the internet. You usually upload files to some remote server somewhere on the internet. I suspect you are trying to "Restore" some backup files that you have stored locally, either on a floppy or a hard drive. If you cannot find them with Windows Explorer, then it isnt a Family Origins problem. Family Origins only looks for files in the folder that you direct it to look in. Is the disk you are looking on a floppy? Does it have subfolders on it? Could you have the wrong floppy? If they are supposed to be on a hard drive, try using the Windows Find function to locate all *.ZIP files on the disk. They could be in some other folder. Good Luck, Alfred
I am unable to download some of my backups from FO6 win95 into FO8 win98. Has anyone had this problem? Is this a windows conflict or a FO conflict? One of my three backups downloaded, the two didn't even show on the disk in win98..
AnneKruszka@netscape.net wrote: >I have a Wish List item for the list -- please get rid of some of the >tag lines, way too many to scroll through especially when there are a >lot of messages. It makes it hard for some email programs to deal with >them. I never scroll through the tag lines. I read the message and then stop before I get down that far. This makes me think perhaps you may be getting the list in digest form. I don't get that, but if it includes all the taglines on all the messages then that would be a mess if you had to scroll through taglines before you could read the next message. And it *has* been noted that some email programs do have trouble with the digest form. The solution to that would be to get the individual messages format instead of the digest form. Seems to me it would be easier to cull out and delete the messages you don't want to read by looking at the headers than by scrolling through a lot of them all jammed together. Especially if you don't read every single message that comes along. Wayne League
>The RootsWeb taglines are like TV commercials, they pay the bills. I prefer >them to a banner adds and dancing monkeys. The ten Family Origins taglines >are more like public service announcements, telling the reader how to do >this or where to find that. The alternative is for us to start PAYING for a lot of the e-mail we receive and I for one prefer it the way it is, although I also sometimes forget to "crop the message" before sending it. The tag lines are there for a valid purpose, but they do little good if you do not read (and heed) them <g>. David *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 05/20/2001, at 9:23 AM, Alfred Eller wrote: <clip> MSgt David E. Cann, USMC (Ret'd) Phone: 540-372-7868 Fax: 540-372-7707 E-mail: decann@infi.net Family home page: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~decann
Yes, you've answered all of my questions. Thank you. Patricia At 10:02 AM 5/20/01 -0700, Rand M. Putnam wrote: >All of my programs except GEDSPRED, operate on Family Origins generated >Modifed Register descendent reports. The report must be created in unedited >RTF format and have the source and index options turned on. NoteConvert is >a subset of DESCEND (i.e., DESCEND contains NoteConvert). If you run >DESCEND, you don't need to run NoteConvert. The same is true of ANCESTOR. >If you don't want the other features of DESCEND (e.g., follow direct >descendents of a selected surname and renumber descendents), then first run >ANCESTOR and then run NoteConvert. I hope this helps. > >Rand >----------------------------------------------------- >Click here for Free Video!! >http://www.gohip.com/free_video/ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "P. SummersSmith" <summerspa@home.com> >To: "Rand M. Putnam" <randmp@netzero.net> >Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 8:46 AM >Subject: Fwd: [FO] Question re Rand's Descend and NoteConvert > > > > > > >Resent-Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 06:43:12 -0700 > > >X-Original-Sender: summerspa@home.com Fri May 18 06:43:12 2001 > > >X-Sender: summerspa@mail.sttls1.wa.home.com > > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 > > >Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 06:40:12 -0700 > > >Old-To: Family Origins Users Group List ><FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> > > >From: "P. SummersSmith" <summerspa@home.com> > > >Subject: [FO] Question re Rand's Descend and NoteConvert > > >To: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > > >Resent-From: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > > >X-Mailing-List: <FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >archive/latest/22516 > > >X-Loop: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > > >Resent-Sender: FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS-L-request@rootsweb.com > > > > > >Can one apply consecutively both Descend and NoteConvert programs to the > > >same RTF file? If so, then do you first apply Descend and then apply > > >NoteConvert second? Vice versa? Does the order matter? Does Descend > > >work no matter which format one has used in the generation of their FO >RTF > > >file? > > > > > >Are there any specific instructions for the procedure of applying > > >both? Any pitfalls to be aware of? > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > >Patricia > > > > > > >NetZero Platinum >No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access >Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month! >http://www.netzero.net