I assume you mean on the Outline Descendant report--and you are right, it doesn't label them as a 2nd spouse--just the + sign in front of the name, as with the first spouse. So if there are children from the first marriage (and grands and great-grands . . . .), yes, it can be down quite a way, and you are right--it can be difficult to line it up. I can't check the reports in my v16, because my laptop (windows 7) is unhappy with my C+ runtime file, so I'd have to restart it and hopefully have it load correctly so I can run the older version. Oh, wait! I just remembered that I had some old ones saved as PDFs for cousins, so opened one up. I see now what you are wanting. The 2nd spouse is still listed with a + in front of their name, but there's a line inserted above that with an * on the left, saying "*2nd Husband of <name>:" That's probably not a terribly complicated modification to make (like many on the list, I'm also a retired programmer!), so definitely submit it as a program change request. I didn't understand what was missing for you before. Sorry for the confusion. I also added the list back on, so others could follow. Christine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary W. Ellis" <mwellis@triad.rr.com> To: "Chris Bauman" <chris.bauman@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 1:51:54 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate If you actually see the label 2nd spouse, full name etc. then please tell me how you managed to get it there my has the second spouse but no label telling me who the spouse if for or what number it is. If its half a page down or even on the next sheet is isn't easy to line up and figure which person they go with. Mary On 2/21/2015 10:55 PM, Chris Bauman wrote: In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) in both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least straightened out the ones I was looking at! Christine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or third spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them before you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar with your database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. It's hard for me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a stray person to see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave that very important part out of the report. Mary Ellis On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: > Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in 2014 > beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is harder to > get what you want out of it. > Mary Ellis > > > On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed to a new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >> >> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >> >> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 are better. >> >> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which v. 16 is superior. >> >> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >> >> Judy in Ocala >> ********************************** >> List information page >> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> -- If you don't know your family history, you are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree. ~ Michael Crichton ~ Mary W. Ellis http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mwellis/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncacgs/ ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- If you don't know your family history, you are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree. ~ Michael Crichton ~ Mary W. Ellis http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mwellis/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncacgs/

Tom, I tried FTM 2008, 2009, and one of the later versions. They simply did not meet my needs. I was able to get V 16 to work on my computer at the time. I am now on Windows 8.1 and V16 works very well. Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 22, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Tom Herson via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > C'mon, it's time you spent a little money and got in the modern age ;-) > >> On 2/22/2015 11:55 AM, BUDDY HARRELSON via wrote: >> Why don't they leave FTM 16 as is; and maybe improve it some and let us who want to keep it use it and let FTM/Ancestry stay. I am sure they sold more FTM 16 than the new versions. >> Buddy Harrelson >> Mullins, SC >> harrelsonb@bellsouth.net >> >> >> On Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:01 AM, "ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> ********************************** >> List information page >> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >> >> Version 2008-2014 >> http://ftm.custhelp.com/ >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (Chris Bauman) >> 2. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (BJ) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:55:36 +0000 (UTC) >> From: Chris Bauman <chris.bauman@comcast.net> >> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate >> To: "Mary W. Ellis" <mwellis@triad.rr.com>, ftm-tech@rootsweb.com >> Message-ID: >> <1898802906.10460489.1424577336235.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >> >> In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) in both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least straightened out the ones I was looking at! >> >> Christine >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> >> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM >> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate >> >> I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or third >> spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them before >> you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar with your >> database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. It's hard for >> me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a stray person to >> see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave that very important >> part out of the report. >> >> Mary Ellis >> >>> On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: >>> Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in 2014 >>> beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is harder to >>> get what you want out of it. >>> Mary Ellis >>> >>> >>>> On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >>>> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed to a new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >>>> >>>> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >>>> >>>> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 are better. >>>> >>>> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which v. 16 is superior. >>>> >>>> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >>>> >>>> Judy in Ocala >>>> ********************************** >>>> List information page >>>> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>>> > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

C'mon, it's time you spent a little money and got in the modern age ;-) On 2/22/2015 11:55 AM, BUDDY HARRELSON via wrote: > Why don't they leave FTM 16 as is; and maybe improve it some and let us who want to keep it use it and let FTM/Ancestry stay. I am sure they sold more FTM 16 than the new versions. > Buddy Harrelson > Mullins, SC > harrelsonb@bellsouth.net > > > On Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:01 AM, "ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > Version 2008-2014 > http://ftm.custhelp.com/ > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (Chris Bauman) > 2. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (BJ) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:55:36 +0000 (UTC) > From: Chris Bauman <chris.bauman@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > To: "Mary W. Ellis" <mwellis@triad.rr.com>, ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: > <1898802906.10460489.1424577336235.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) in both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least straightened out the ones I was looking at! > > Christine > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > > I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or third > spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them before > you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar with your > database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. It's hard for > me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a stray person to > see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave that very important > part out of the report. > > Mary Ellis > > On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: >> Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in 2014 >> beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is harder to >> get what you want out of it. >> Mary Ellis >> >> >> On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >>> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed to a new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >>> >>> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >>> >>> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 are better. >>> >>> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which v. 16 is superior. >>> >>> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >>> >>> Judy in Ocala >>> ********************************** >>> List information page >>> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>>

Don't ridicule people!! Just try to use FTM-2014 with over 220,000 individuals and it is completely useless for 90% of what can be handled very nicely by FTM-16 Only when FTM has the capability and speed of FTM-16 will I change to the new version for my data entry. I use FTM-2014 only for searching the databases to see what others have. When FTM-2014 was in Beta test I was asked to join the testing process. The speed of importing a file was terrible. Only after I had uploaded my complete database to FTM was the Dev Group able to see the problem and get the speed up to what FTM-2012 had. It takes 17-18 minutes to import my database from FTM-16 into FTM-2014. FTM-2011 took over 4 hours to do the same thing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Arnold E. Krause 1611 Arlington Ave., Saskatoon, Sask., CANADA, S7H 2Y6 Tel: 306 374-3348 email address: arnie-krause@shaw.ca Homepage: http://members.shaw.ca/arnie-krause/index.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tom Herson via Sent: 22 February, 2015 12:30 PM To: BUDDY HARRELSON; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 C'mon, it's time you spent a little money and got in the modern age ;-) On 2/22/2015 11:55 AM, BUDDY HARRELSON via wrote: > Why don't they leave FTM 16 as is; and maybe improve it some and let us who want to keep it use it and let FTM/Ancestry stay. I am sure they sold more FTM 16 than the new versions. > Buddy Harrelson > Mullins, SC > harrelsonb@bellsouth.net > > > On Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:01 AM, "ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > > > > > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > Version 2008-2014 > http://ftm.custhelp.com/ > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (Chris Bauman) > 2. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (BJ) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:55:36 +0000 (UTC) > From: Chris Bauman <chris.bauman@comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > To: "Mary W. Ellis" <mwellis@triad.rr.com>, ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: > <1898802906.10460489.1424577336235.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) in both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least straightened out the ones I was looking at! > > Christine > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > > I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or > third spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them > before you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar > with your database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. > It's hard for me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a > stray person to see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave > that very important part out of the report. > > Mary Ellis > > On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: >> Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in >> 2014 beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is >> harder to get what you want out of it. >> Mary Ellis >> >> >> On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >>> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed to a new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >>> >>> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >>> >>> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 are better. >>> >>> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which v. 16 is superior. >>> >>> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >>> >>> Judy in Ocala >>> ********************************** >>> List information page >>> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >>> the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Len, You said: "3. I also liked Ver. 16 custom report capability where I could add columns. I had made (in 16) a report with : name, birth, birth location, death, death location, spouse as a column chart (like a spreadsheet). I can’t reproduce this type in 2014." OK, but have you "shared", creating a .CSV file for a spreadsheet? Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: lenenlow via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: treewright@gmail.com; FTM Tech <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 1:34 PM Subject: [FTM-TECH] Version 16 vs 2014 Judy, thanks for asking for this, as it might help Ancestry add some functionality to FTM. Here are my comments. There are a couple things that I whish that 2014 could do that 16 did. 1. Relationship Chart (2014) Vs. Direct Descendants Chart (16). My paternal grandparents were second cousins. In the Relationship Chart it shows only one line, but on the Direct Descendants Chart it comes down my chart, from my ancestors, and when it gets to my grandparents the chart splits and shows a relationship, to me, from my grandfather and one from my grandmother. I wish that 2014 could reproduce that chart. 2. Relationship Calculator (2014). It only shows ONE relationship of me to my grandmother. Since my grandparents (above) were 2nd cousins I should be related to my grandmother in more than in one way. 3. I also liked Ver. 16 custom report capability where I could add columns. I had made (in 16) a report with : name, birth, birth location, death, death location, spouse as a column chart (like a spreadsheet). I can’t reproduce this type in 2014.

Len, You said: "1. Relationship Chart (2014) Vs. Direct Descendants Chart (16). My paternal grandparents were second cousins. In the Relationship Chart it shows only one line, but on the Direct Descendants Chart it comes down my chart, from my ancestors, and when it gets to my grandparents the chart splits and shows a relationship, to me, from my grandfather and one from my grandmother. I wish that 2014 could reproduce that chart." Have you used the Tools, Relationship Calculator and View Relationship Chart? My parents, looking at the Relationship chart, rightfully shows husband and wife. BUT, in the Relationship line it says Relationship (2) and there is a drop down menu. That then shows that they are also 5th cousins, 2x removed. Sorry, I don't think you can do that in Version 16. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: lenenlow via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: treewright@gmail.com; FTM Tech <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 1:34 PM Subject: [FTM-TECH] Version 16 vs 2014 Judy, thanks for asking for this, as it might help Ancestry add some functionality to FTM. Here are my comments. There are a couple things that I whish that 2014 could do that 16 did. 1. Relationship Chart (2014) Vs. Direct Descendants Chart (16). My paternal grandparents were second cousins. In the Relationship Chart it shows only one line, but on the Direct Descendants Chart it comes down my chart, from my ancestors, and when it gets to my grandparents the chart splits and shows a relationship, to me, from my grandfather and one from my grandmother. I wish that 2014 could reproduce that chart. 2. Relationship Calculator (2014). It only shows ONE relationship of me to my grandmother. Since my grandparents (above) were 2nd cousins I should be related to my grandmother in more than in one way. 3. I also liked Ver. 16 custom report capability where I could add columns. I had made (in 16) a report with : name, birth, birth location, death, death location, spouse as a column chart (like a spreadsheet). I can’t reproduce this type in 2014.

I just had to put my two cents in for what it is worth. The reason that I use 16 as my main program is for reports I cannot do in 2014, for example: Getting a report on all of my surnames in Ryglice, Poland that I can share wit 9 other people who are researching the same city, as well as a few surrounding towns. While I can get almost the same kind of report in 2014, I cannot: format the report to print in landscape form because of the space I need to print the info: Name---Birth Date--Marriage Date--Death Date--Spouse--Zip Code (which in the case of Poland, I use the "house number) In 2014, I cannot include any choice for the fields I want to print and will print those fields that I do have information for - except for the Spouse and House Number (Zip Code). My report in 16 prints 32 pages in landscape while 2014 prints 64 pages in portrait and I don't have all the information I want. I have tried and looked at every place in 2014. Am I missing something or some place to do this report and add the information I want and need??? Lorraine Moore Baton Rouge, Louisiana --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com

Judy, thanks for asking for this, as it might help Ancestry add some functionality to FTM. Here are my comments. There are a couple things that I whish that 2014 could do that 16 did. 1. Relationship Chart (2014) Vs. Direct Descendants Chart (16). My paternal grandparents were second cousins. In the Relationship Chart it shows only one line, but on the Direct Descendants Chart it comes down my chart, from my ancestors, and when it gets to my grandparents the chart splits and shows a relationship, to me, from my grandfather and one from my grandmother. I wish that 2014 could reproduce that chart. 2. Relationship Calculator (2014). It only shows ONE relationship of me to my grandmother. Since my grandparents (above) were 2nd cousins I should be related to my grandmother in more than in one way. 3. I also liked Ver. 16 custom report capability where I could add columns. I had made (in 16) a report with : name, birth, birth location, death, death location, spouse as a column chart (like a spreadsheet). I can’t reproduce this type in 2014. I love 2014 and would not go back. Len, in California

Lorraine, Sorry, I hope you don't think I am picking on you, just trying to understand your issues. You then said: "My report in 16 prints 32 pages in landscape while 2014 prints 64 pages in portrait and I don't have all the information I want. I have tried and looked at every place in 2014. Am I missing something or some place to do this report and add the information I want and need???" WHAT Report are you talking about. What Information are you missing? Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Lorraine Moore via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I just had to put my two cents in for what it is worth. The reason that I use 16 as my main program is for reports I cannot do in 2014, for example: Getting a report on all of my surnames in Ryglice, Poland that I can share wit 9 other people who are researching the same city, as well as a few surrounding towns. While I can get almost the same kind of report in 2014, I cannot: format the report to print in landscape form because of the space I need to print the info: Name---Birth Date--Marriage Date--Death Date--Spouse--Zip Code (which in the case of Poland, I use the "house number) In 2014, I cannot include any choice for the fields I want to print and will print those fields that I do have information for - except for the Spouse and House Number (Zip Code). My report in 16 prints 32 pages in landscape while 2014 prints 64 pages in portrait and I don't have all the information I want. I have tried and looked at every place in 2014. Am I missing something or some place to do this report and add the information I want and need???

Lorraine, Your next item: "In 2014, I cannot include any choice for the fields I want to print and will print those fields that I do have information for - except for the Spouse and House Number (Zip Code)." again, you can control what fields / fact are included. I am making a general response to a NON specific statement. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Lorraine Moore via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I just had to put my two cents in for what it is worth. The reason that I use 16 as my main program is for reports I cannot do in 2014, for example: Getting a report on all of my surnames in Ryglice, Poland that I can share wit 9 other people who are researching the same city, as well as a few surrounding towns. While I can get almost the same kind of report in 2014, I cannot: format the report to print in landscape form because of the space I need to print the info: Name---Birth Date--Marriage Date--Death Date--Spouse--Zip Code (which in the case of Poland, I use the "house number) In 2014, I cannot include any choice for the fields I want to print and will print those fields that I do have information for - except for the Spouse and House Number (Zip Code). My report in 16 prints 32 pages in landscape while 2014 prints 64 pages in portrait and I don't have all the information I want. I have tried and looked at every place in 2014. Am I missing something or some place to do this report and add the information I want and need??? Lorraine Moore Baton Rouge, Louisiana --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Lorraine, You said: "format the report to print in landscape form because of the space I need to print the info: Name---Birth Date--Marriage Date--Death Date--Spouse--Zip Code (which in the case of Poland, I use the "house number)" I believe you CAN do this in the set up for the report you are trying to create. You can control WHAT information to include in the report, Portrait or Landscape, Font Size, which you might need to change. Have you tried any of that? And, which report are you trying to create? Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Lorraine Moore via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I just had to put my two cents in for what it is worth. The reason that I use 16 as my main program is for reports I cannot do in 2014, for example: Getting a report on all of my surnames in Ryglice, Poland that I can share wit 9 other people who are researching the same city, as well as a few surrounding towns. While I can get almost the same kind of report in 2014, I cannot: format the report to print in landscape form because of the space I need to print the info: Name---Birth Date--Marriage Date--Death Date--Spouse--Zip Code (which in the case of Poland, I use the "house number) In 2014, I cannot include any choice for the fields I want to print and will print those fields that I do have information for - except for the Spouse and House Number (Zip Code). My report in 16 prints 32 pages in landscape while 2014 prints 64 pages in portrait and I don't have all the information I want. I have tried and looked at every place in 2014. Am I missing something or some place to do this report and add the information I want and need???

Lorraine, You said: "Getting a report on all of my surnames in Ryglice, Poland that I can share wit 9 other people who are researching the same city, as well as a few surrounding towns. While I can get almost the same kind of report in 2014, I cannot:" Actually you can using the Filter Feature. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Lorraine Moore via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I just had to put my two cents in for what it is worth. The reason that I use 16 as my main program is for reports I cannot do in 2014, for example: Getting a report on all of my surnames in Ryglice, Poland that I can share wit 9 other people who are researching the same city, as well as a few surrounding towns. While I can get almost the same kind of report in 2014, I cannot: format the report to print in landscape form because of the space I need to print the info: Name---Birth Date--Marriage Date--Death Date--Spouse--Zip Code (which in the case of Poland, I use the "house number) In 2014, I cannot include any choice for the fields I want to print and will print those fields that I do have information for - except for the Spouse and House Number (Zip Code). My report in 16 prints 32 pages in landscape while 2014 prints 64 pages in portrait and I don't have all the information I want. I have tried and looked at every place in 2014. Am I missing something or some place to do this report and add the information I want and need???

Buddy, Noone is going to do anything about updating Version 16. No updates. It's very old (DOS based) technology. No one knows how to program it any more. So you are solid until you get a new computer, they you will have issues. Yes, I have Version 16 on my Windows 8.1, 64 bit PC and it runs, but there is a feature that will NOT run. But, I can run circles around Version 16 with FTM2014. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: BUDDY HARRELSON via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 Why don't they leave FTM 16 as is; and maybe improve it some and let us who want to keep it use it and let FTM/Ancestry stay. I am sure they sold more FTM 16 than the new versions.

Why don't they leave FTM 16 as is; and maybe improve it some and let us who want to keep it use it and let FTM/Ancestry stay. I am sure they sold more FTM 16 than the new versions. Buddy Harrelson Mullins, SC harrelsonb@bellsouth.net On Sunday, February 22, 2015 3:01 AM, "ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Version 2008-2014 http://ftm.custhelp.com/ Today's Topics: 1. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (Chris Bauman) 2. Re: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate (BJ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 03:55:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Chris Bauman <chris.bauman@comcast.net> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate To: "Mary W. Ellis" <mwellis@triad.rr.com>, ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <1898802906.10460489.1424577336235.JavaMail.zimbra@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) in both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least straightened out the ones I was looking at! Christine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or third spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them before you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar with your database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. It's hard for me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a stray person to see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave that very important part out of the report. Mary Ellis On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: > Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in 2014 > beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is harder to > get what you want out of it. > Mary Ellis > > > On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed to a new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >> >> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >> >> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 are better. >> >> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which v. 16 is superior. >> >> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >> >> Judy in Ocala >> ********************************** >> List information page >> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> -- If you don't know your family history, you are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree. ~ Michael Crichton ~ Mary W. Ellis http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mwellis/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncacgs/ ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:33:50 -0700 From: BJ <oldtrails@gmx.com> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <54E96A3E.5010705@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed I think much of the problems revolve around the fact that many do not want to learn a new way of doing something. When I first saw and used FTM 2008, I loved it because it provided me a way of getting around and entering data in multiple ways. I was so tired of having to use the page back and page forward multiple times to navigate between the various pages. It was simply a waste of time. The new rewrite lets me jump immediately between different work areas without the pain of having to use the Page back or page forward. Also, I very seldom enter a new person from the Tree/Family work area especially if I'm entering multiple facts. I find it much easier to enter the individual's information in the Person work area. I can enter a new fact, enter the source information, enter the correct place name and then move on to the next fact. Am I satisfied with FTM 2014 --- NO! As some one pointed out the Custom Report needs a major enhancement so that it is not individual centric as it is now. I also want tear away windows so that I can have the source work area in a separate window or I can have a report in a separate window. This would allow me to view the information and at the same time enter or edit the information in another window without having to page between them. Regarding your comment about entering the parameters before generating the report, that has been around since FTM 4.5 as far as I can remember. So that is not a change from FTM 16. I think the development team is attempting to produce the report as quickly as possible and have made a calculated risk that the user will want essentially the same report format as was used previously so they begin generating the report. As has been noted, the user can make any changes and the report incorporates those changes into the report. Since the data base is being read only and all of the report information is being created in temporary memory areas, there should not be any danger to any of the pointers or addresses in the data base. In a business scenario where multiple programs may be running on a single or connected computers, I agree that the program would not begin generating the report before it had all of the parameters because it is wasted CPU cycles which would normally be assigned to another program. However, in this instance we are dealing with a single stand alone computer which is probably spending most of its CPU cycles waiting for the next key stroke from the user. So there is really nothing lost by not taking the calculated risk. I don't mean to sound discouraging or disparaging as I'm sure the development team would be interested in any feedback we might be able to provide to make FTM a better product. BJ On 2/21/2015 6:05 PM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: > Yes, I know you can do that, but only the name, and do it a lot, there > is one of the hints that says to enter the b d m in the side panel. > I know that you can enter the parameters after the report has already > started compiling. Has a programmer, I think that is a good way to screw > up the system, it is in essence stopping the compiling when its in > progress only to start it again, couldn't this be a way of messing up > the pointers in the database? ------------------------------ End of FTM-TECH Digest, Vol 9, Issue 24 ***************************************

Russ, I no longer have v.2008 installed on a computer so I can't go back to revisit the issues, but I imported data from v.16 and some of the reports I had used before had problems to the point where I considered them unusable for my purpose. No, I didn't retain a list - I believe Family Group Sheet was one that failed, but it wasn't the only one that either failed or was missing completely initially. Blank Smart Story that replaced the old Text Item is another - just partially fixed in v.2014 with a recent patch update. Kind of irrelevant now, but I did put off any move to the new regimen until v.2012 except for some 'play time'. When v.2012 came out I maintained v.16 and v.2012 in parallel. I use v.2014 now, but evaluating ways to deal with the book issues in that version or updating a family branch in v.16 for a specific project due in July. Joanne On 2/22/2015 7:36 AM, H R Worthington wrote: > Joanne, > > Do you have an example behind this statement that you made: > > "For me, the problem was that I already had data in the previous version > and the reports didn't work. I couldn't get data back out again to > share." > > Thank you, > > Russ > ___________________________ > > Mailto:rworthington@att.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Joanne Hintz via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > *To:* ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > *Sent:* Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:00 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > > I have to disagree with you on the first sentence, BJ, which takes me in > a whole different direction. > > For me, the problem was that I already had data in the previous version > and the reports didn't work. I couldn't get data back out again to share. > > The claim was that there were experienced people on the plan for the new > FTM. I'll take their word for it, but were they experienced with the > new database and the new programming language? I don't know. My view: > I'll put up with awkward data entry for a time - after all, I do it once > for each individual plus a correction or addition here and there. I > want a database that is stable and contains all the elements I'll need, > organized for efficiency - that's "under the covers" of course so the > users normally shouldn't care. I want at least the basic old reports I > had before - in good working condition. > > What we got with v.2008 was a product built for the 'sizzle' desired by > marketing without the 'substance' required by the users. Lots of flashy > change on the data entry side, but database difficulties and reporting > failures. They're still recovering, at least on the report side, and > they've had quite a time with the database fixes. Updates seem to happen > with the Ancestry interface - but they want to sell that, so money > speaks. I don't care a whole lot as I get very little new information > from that source though it has provided a backup alternative. Your > 'tear-away' windows sound nice, but I don't really care until the output > side is functioning as it should.

I have to disagree with you on the first sentence, BJ, which takes me in a whole different direction. For me, the problem was that I already had data in the previous version and the reports didn't work. I couldn't get data back out again to share. The claim was that there were experienced people on the plan for the new FTM. I'll take their word for it, but were they experienced with the new database and the new programming language? I don't know. My view: I'll put up with awkward data entry for a time - after all, I do it once for each individual plus a correction or addition here and there. I want a database that is stable and contains all the elements I'll need, organized for efficiency - that's "under the covers" of course so the users normally shouldn't care. I want at least the basic old reports I had before - in good working condition. What we got with v.2008 was a product built for the 'sizzle' desired by marketing without the 'substance' required by the users. Lots of flashy change on the data entry side, but database difficulties and reporting failures. They're still recovering, at least on the report side, and they've had quite a time with the database fixes. Updates seem to happen with the Ancestry interface - but they want to sell that, so money speaks. I don't care a whole lot as I get very little new information from that source though it has provided a backup alternative. Your 'tear-away' windows sound nice, but I don't really care until the output side is functioning as it should. Yes, BJ, I'm getting to be a cranky old woman - I can't develop an attitude because I already have one. <G> We used to tease a grandson that he was part raccoon because he went toward the "shiny stuff" a flea market. Data entry windows/forms are in that category for me - the cover on the box. What's IN the box is more important - and can I get it out? Joanne On 2/21/2015 11:33 PM, BJ via wrote: > I think much of the problems revolve around the fact that many do not > want to learn a new way of doing something. When I first saw and used > FTM 2008, I loved it because it provided me a way of getting around and > entering data in multiple ways. I was so tired of having to use the > page back and page forward multiple times to navigate between the > various pages. It was simply a waste of time. The new rewrite lets me > jump immediately between different work areas without the pain of having > to use the Page back or page forward. Also, I very seldom enter a new > person from the Tree/Family work area especially if I'm entering > multiple facts. I find it much easier to enter the individual's > information in the Person work area. I can enter a new fact, enter the > source information, enter the correct place name and then move on to the > next fact. > > Am I satisfied with FTM 2014 --- NO! As some one pointed out the Custom > Report needs a major enhancement so that it is not individual centric as > it is now. I also want tear away windows so that I can have the source > work area in a separate window or I can have a report in a separate > window. This would allow me to view the information and at the same > time enter or edit the information in another window without having to > page between them. > > Regarding your comment about entering the parameters before generating > the report, that has been around since FTM 4.5 as far as I can > remember. So that is not a change from FTM 16. I think the development > team is attempting to produce the report as quickly as possible and have > made a calculated risk that the user will want essentially the same > report format as was used previously so they begin generating the > report. As has been noted, the user can make any changes and the report > incorporates those changes into the report. Since the data base is > being read only and all of the report information is being created in > temporary memory areas, there should not be any danger to any of the > pointers or addresses in the data base. In a business scenario where > multiple programs may be running on a single or connected computers, I > agree that the program would not begin generating the report before it > had all of the parameters because it is wasted CPU cycles which would > normally be assigned to another program. However, in this instance we > are dealing with a single stand alone computer which is probably > spending most of its CPU cycles waiting for the next key stroke from the > user. So there is really nothing lost by not taking the calculated risk. > > I don't mean to sound discouraging or disparaging as I'm sure the > development team would be interested in any feedback we might be able to > provide to make FTM a better product. > > BJ > > On 2/21/2015 6:05 PM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: >> Yes, I know you can do that, but only the name, and do it a lot, there >> is one of the hints that says to enter the b d m in the side panel. >> I know that you can enter the parameters after the report has already >> started compiling. Has a programmer, I think that is a good way to screw >> up the system, it is in essence stopping the compiling when its in >> progress only to start it again, couldn't this be a way of messing up >> the pointers in the database? > ********************************** > List information page > http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > >

Joanne, Do you have an example behind this statement that you made: "For me, the problem was that I already had data in the previous version and the reports didn't work. I couldn't get data back out again to share." Thank you, Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Joanne Hintz via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I have to disagree with you on the first sentence, BJ, which takes me in a whole different direction. For me, the problem was that I already had data in the previous version and the reports didn't work. I couldn't get data back out again to share. The claim was that there were experienced people on the plan for the new FTM. I'll take their word for it, but were they experienced with the new database and the new programming language? I don't know. My view: I'll put up with awkward data entry for a time - after all, I do it once for each individual plus a correction or addition here and there. I want a database that is stable and contains all the elements I'll need, organized for efficiency - that's "under the covers" of course so the users normally shouldn't care. I want at least the basic old reports I had before - in good working condition. What we got with v.2008 was a product built for the 'sizzle' desired by marketing without the 'substance' required by the users. Lots of flashy change on the data entry side, but database difficulties and reporting failures. They're still recovering, at least on the report side, and they've had quite a time with the database fixes. Updates seem to happen with the Ancestry interface - but they want to sell that, so money speaks. I don't care a whole lot as I get very little new information from that source though it has provided a backup alternative. Your 'tear-away' windows sound nice, but I don't really care until the output side is functioning as it should.

In the 2014 software, (build 1345) I see 2nd spouses (multiple times) in both the Outline Report, and the Outline Descendant Report. In the Outline Report, the spouses are listed with full names, parents' names (if available) marriage date, and birth and death dates (if available). In the Outline Descendant Report, each spouse has a + sign preceding their name. In playing around with it, I discovered that I didn't have some of mine set up with the correct spouse order (it uses that in determining their order in both the reports, regardless of which spouse is preferred). So I at least straightened out the ones I was looking at! Christine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary W. Ellis via" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29:46 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate I forgot to mention, the Outline report no longer marks second or third spouses. You have to go through and look them up and mark them before you can sent the report to anyone. Even if they are familiar with your database it would be very hard for them to figure it out. It's hard for me to, I have to go back and look up what looks like a stray person to see who they belong to. It's really crazy to leave that very important part out of the report. Mary Ellis On 2/21/2015 3:18 AM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: > Judy, I'm using 2014, but the custom report in v16 had the one in 2014 > beat in all aspects, I can use the one we have now but it is harder to > get what you want out of it. > Mary Ellis > > > On 2/20/2015 11:47 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: >> We are coming up on 8 years since v. 16 was completely reprogrammed to a new database structure. In the beginning, we all felt that v. 2008 was lacking many of the features that we loved in 16. >> >> Over the years many improvements and enhancements have been made to succeeding versions and upgrades. As a result, version 2014 is a much more stable, robust, and versatile program than 2008 was. >> >> But in spite of the many improvements, there is an bedrock of loyal users of v. 16. One of the reasons often given for sticking with 16 is the reports, but there hasn't been much discussion about why the reports in 16 are better. >> >> So I'm asking those who are still using v. 16 to share their opinions. And not just about reports, but if you think there are other ways in which v. 16 is superior. >> >> Please give examples, and keep your comments constructive. >> >> Judy in Ocala >> ********************************** >> List information page >> http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> -- If you don't know your family history, you are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree. ~ Michael Crichton ~ Mary W. Ellis http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~mwellis/ http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncacgs/ ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FTM-TECH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I think much of the problems revolve around the fact that many do not want to learn a new way of doing something. When I first saw and used FTM 2008, I loved it because it provided me a way of getting around and entering data in multiple ways. I was so tired of having to use the page back and page forward multiple times to navigate between the various pages. It was simply a waste of time. The new rewrite lets me jump immediately between different work areas without the pain of having to use the Page back or page forward. Also, I very seldom enter a new person from the Tree/Family work area especially if I'm entering multiple facts. I find it much easier to enter the individual's information in the Person work area. I can enter a new fact, enter the source information, enter the correct place name and then move on to the next fact. Am I satisfied with FTM 2014 --- NO! As some one pointed out the Custom Report needs a major enhancement so that it is not individual centric as it is now. I also want tear away windows so that I can have the source work area in a separate window or I can have a report in a separate window. This would allow me to view the information and at the same time enter or edit the information in another window without having to page between them. Regarding your comment about entering the parameters before generating the report, that has been around since FTM 4.5 as far as I can remember. So that is not a change from FTM 16. I think the development team is attempting to produce the report as quickly as possible and have made a calculated risk that the user will want essentially the same report format as was used previously so they begin generating the report. As has been noted, the user can make any changes and the report incorporates those changes into the report. Since the data base is being read only and all of the report information is being created in temporary memory areas, there should not be any danger to any of the pointers or addresses in the data base. In a business scenario where multiple programs may be running on a single or connected computers, I agree that the program would not begin generating the report before it had all of the parameters because it is wasted CPU cycles which would normally be assigned to another program. However, in this instance we are dealing with a single stand alone computer which is probably spending most of its CPU cycles waiting for the next key stroke from the user. So there is really nothing lost by not taking the calculated risk. I don't mean to sound discouraging or disparaging as I'm sure the development team would be interested in any feedback we might be able to provide to make FTM a better product. BJ On 2/21/2015 6:05 PM, Mary W. Ellis via wrote: > Yes, I know you can do that, but only the name, and do it a lot, there > is one of the hints that says to enter the b d m in the side panel. > I know that you can enter the parameters after the report has already > started compiling. Has a programmer, I think that is a good way to screw > up the system, it is in essence stopping the compiling when its in > progress only to start it again, couldn't this be a way of messing up > the pointers in the database?

Hi Guys Long time since I posted anything. I stuck with V16 until last year. Since then I have TRYING to get 2014 up and running. My db has 130,000+ and almost 500k Facts. the max for V16. Initially I started on the older (new) versions and gave up - but I can see there is no way ahead without biting the bullet. Since I got back from my last cruise - London - Fremantle on Dec 12, I have spent every waking moment trying to work thru the "Places". I am starting to get the hang of it and have got sidetracked by trying to find all the cousins and rellies KIA in WW1. Not an easy job. Why they had to change to way the system works is beyond me. V16 did not "hang" and require compaction like this does. I see people complaining about it regularly. And you guys claim it is "more stable". I think the horse has bolted. Clearly there are advantages in using 2014, however I keep seeing MY work (and MY errors) replicated all over searches and real crumby research on trees submitted. I only look at historical records. I don't think we have much option but to switch - but I still backup and keep my old V16 up to date - but have to delete people from time to time to keep size down, Those are my opinions, Clem in Perth, Western Austrlia