I should have reread before I sent this... way to many typo's LOL > Yes, I know you can do that, but only the name,_and_ (I) do it a lot, there > is_one__ of the_ (A)_hints_ (Hint) 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(As) 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? > > Mary Ellis > > > On 2/21/2015 6:37 PM, H R Worthington wrote: >> Mary, >> >> You can type into the birth, death, and marriage fields in the People >> Workspace, Tree View. >> >> Don't know what RCIEPS means, haven't seen that one, >> >> As to the Report, You do NOT have to wait for it to complete. You can >> change what ever you want BEFORE the report completes. >> >> Russ >> ___________________________ >> >> Mailto:rworthington@att.net >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Mary W. Ellis via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> >> *To:* Judy in Ocala <treewright@gmail.com>; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com >> *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:16 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate >> >> This screen looks good, but the bottom part can't be typed in except for >> the first entry of the name. After that you have to use the panel on the >> right side, so it seems kind of silly to hid it. By the way, I don't >> have LDS turned on, what does that RCIEPS in the parents block mean. I >> see it is on each child also. >> >> Mary Ellis >> >> Oh just to mention it... I was a programmer before I retired and if we >> had written a report that you had to run BEFORE you told it the >> parameters you wanted, they would have run us off the property. It is >> so strange to me that it is this way. It would make so much more sense >> to pick what subset of people or the whole file a report is being run >> for, what facts you want show, etc. -- 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/

Joanne, I fully agree!!! Ole 2015-02-21 19:52 GMT+01:00 Joanne Hintz via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com>: > Just a few thoughts as I try to update a book produced in 2005 and > updated through v.16 ... > > Genealogy report - inline sources are preferable for a general > audience. If only endnotes are available, I won't print them. The > genealogists can ask for an exception if they want, but the kindest word > from the rest is "trash" and they won't flip to the pages. Photos that > were added aren't worth much - too small, though supposedly they can be > increased in size but only some were resized when I tested that option. > > When the books/reports are imported from v.16, why can't the report > options - at least paper size, margins, font & size, nbr generations - > be imported. Early on, I asked that question - answer was that they > were using a 3rd party text processor and couldn't get the parameters, > but that seemed bogus. The parameters are no doubt being saved in FTM > and could be read, translated if necessary, to the new format. > > Descendant chart (horizontal) - text is only to the right or left of the > photo. Option I used in v.16 placed the text above the photo. It took > less horizontal space, looked better (OK, that's an opinion), and a > large family fit nicely on a tabloid foldout. Even if I do a book now in > v.2014, I'll go back and do this chart on v.16! > > Book - Table of Contents - if the next page starts a section and should > start on the right-hand (odd) page, the blank page behind the TOC is not > generated and pagination is off in the entire book. (Why wasn't this > patched long ago?) > > Book - Place Holder - cannot set the number of pages, or I'd have used 1 > as a temporary 'fix' for the TOC, or at least tried it. (Again, why is > this still a problem? I know doing the new stuff is more fun, but get > rid of the annoying little problems!) > > Smart Story used as the blank text item - this should be WYSIWYG but it > doesn't work for all output options. I don't have time to retest it > today, but I believe the PDF output is one where it appears the margins > are adjusted by the system, or maybe applied twice. It takes a lot of > back and forth to get a page to "stick" within margins for output - also > somewhat a problem in v.16, but seemed to be limited to the PDF writer. > Full Adobe instead of the one with FTM worked correctly when the one > with v.16 FTM did not. > > Data entry screen - Lower part of the screen, not the chart ... select > parents of one of the couple displayed, but if there are multiple > marriages another of the spouses and other children can be displayed. > BJ did some testing and I think determined that a 'preferred' spouse was > being brought up instead of the couple that should display. > > I'd like to have an option to hide the Facts I'll never use so I don't > have to scroll through the extras. As a global setting, it would be > easy to go back and add in one if I change my mind. > > No doubt there's more. Development should sit down with the reports > side-by-side and compare options. In fact, they should learn the old > system and do this before they start coding. You're going to tell me > it's too late for that, aren't you? <G> > > Joanne > > On 2/20/2015 10:47 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 > -- Ole P. Bielefeldt www.familytreemaker.dk

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? Mary Ellis On 2/21/2015 6:37 PM, H R Worthington wrote: > Mary, > > You can type into the birth, death, and marriage fields in the People > Workspace, Tree View. > > Don't know what RCIEPS means, haven't seen that one, > > As to the Report, You do NOT have to wait for it to complete. You can > change what ever you want BEFORE the report completes. > > Russ > ___________________________ > > Mailto:rworthington@att.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Mary W. Ellis via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > *To:* Judy in Ocala <treewright@gmail.com>; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:16 PM > *Subject:* Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > > This screen looks good, but the bottom part can't be typed in except for > the first entry of the name. After that you have to use the panel on the > right side, so it seems kind of silly to hid it. By the way, I don't > have LDS turned on, what does that RCIEPS in the parents block mean. I > see it is on each child also. > > Mary Ellis > > Oh just to mention it... I was a programmer before I retired and if we > had written a report that you had to run BEFORE you told it the > parameters you wanted, they would have run us off the property. It is > so strange to me that it is this way. It would make so much more sense > to pick what subset of people or the whole file a report is being run > for, what facts you want show, etc. -- 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/

No, it prints all the wives or husbands but does not mark them like v16 did, like 2nd wife of Joe Jones or 3rd husband of Jane Doe 1 James Robert Weaver (1873 - 1951) + Martha Ann Worsham (1877 - 1955) ....2 James Clinton Weaver Sr. (1903 - 1979) + Ellie Mae Padgett (1908 - 1984) ........3 Frances Onell Weaver (1924 - Unknown) +Herman M. Summers (1922 -) 3 Ruth A. Weaver (1926 - 2006) +Taylor Bluford Blake Jr. (1927 - 2008) ............4 Jim Blake ^ + Ione (Blake) ........3 Evelyn Weaver (1927 -) ........3 James Clinton Weaver Jr. (1928 -) + Betty Jane Wright (1930 -) ............4 Beverly J. Weaver (1950 -) + Samuel Buford Saul Sr. (1921 - 1990) ............4 Denise Wright Weaver (1954 -) + James David Jones m: ........3 Robert Lee 'Bob" Weaver (1929 - 2015) + Rachel Rebecca 'Becky' Alberty (1932 -) ............4 Beth Angela Weaver (1956 -) +John Christopher Johnson (1946 -) +Gregory Francis O'Hara 2nd husband ............4 Rachel Bernadette Weaver (1958 -) + Karl Franklin Price (1952 -) ............4 Brandan Gray Weaver (1961 -) + Norma Gail Bayse + Billie Crisco Coleman 2nd husband ............4 Kelly Babbette Weaver (1962 -) ............4 Becky Susanna Weaver (1970 -) +Steven Wayne Fuller (1963 -) +Gertrude Levada Alberty (1909 - 2000) 2nd wife ....2 Connie Lee Weaver (1909 - 1993) + William Howard Wrenn Sr. (1905 - 1989) ........3 Vivian Marie Wrenn (1930 -) +William Junior Lucas (1929 - 2003) ............4 Jerry Wayne Lucas Sr (1949 - 1997) + Betty Diane Crowder (1951 -) +Linda Gail Bean (1955 -) 2nd wife ............4 William Michael Lucas (1957 -) +Lorrie Ann Jordan (1959 -) +Sarah Riggs (1948 -) 2nd wife 5 Michele Lucas +Jo Ellen George (1959 -) 3ed wife ............4 Kim Marie Lucas (1961 -) +Alan Steve Mathews (1957 -) +John Reed Tysinger (1945 -) 2nd husband ........3 Twin Boy Wrenn (1932 - 1932) ........3 Twin Girl Wrenn (1932 - 1932) ........3 Elsie Lee Wrenn (1933 -) +William Lester Brady (1933 - 2007) ............4 Judy Carol Brady (1952 -) +Thomas Jacob 'Tommy' Lewis (1951 -) +Marvin Odean 'Pete' Brown (1957 -) 2nd husband ............4 Kenneth Wayne Brady Sr. (1954 - 2007) +Sandra Louise Fisher (1945 -) +Teresa Lewellen (1953 -) 2nd wife 5 Kenneth Wayne Brady, Jr. +Jeanette Beck 3ed wife +Veeta Maria Inzetta 4th wife +Jacelyn Cheyenne Dickerstaffe (1959 -) 5th wife ............4 Lisa Ann Brady (1962 -) +David Junior Sweeney (1965 -) +Fletcher Thomas Solomon (1900 - 1961) 2nd (Friend) This type is hard to find in a long report ........3 Martha Sue Wrenn (1940 -) + Everett Lea Rumley Jr. (1941 - 2010) ............4 Laura Rumley + Bill Butler ............4 Jan Rumley + Kevin Walker ............4 Robin Rumley + Brian Meier ............4 Everett Lea 'Skip' Rumley +James Smith Webster (1913 - 1997) 3ed Husband ....2 Robert L. Weaver (1910 -) ....2 Frank W. Weaver (1914 -) +Dixie (Weaver) +Lois Virginia Lovett (1914 - 2014) 2nd wife On 2/21/2015 6:38 PM, H R Worthington wrote: > Mary, > > Please check the ODR report settings. I am guessing that you have > selected Preferred ONLY. > > Russ > ___________________________ > > Mailto:rworthington@att.net > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Mary W. Ellis via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> > *To:* ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > *Sent:* Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29 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. -- 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/

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/

This screen looks good, but the bottom part can't be typed in except for the first entry of the name. After that you have to use the panel on the right side, so it seems kind of silly to hid it. By the way, I don't have LDS turned on, what does that RCIEPS in the parents block mean. I see it is on each child also. Mary Ellis Oh just to mention it... I was a programmer before I retired and if we had written a report that you had to run BEFORE you told it the parameters you wanted, they would have run us off the property. It is so strange to me that it is this way. It would make so much more sense to pick what subset of people or the whole file a report is being run for, what facts you want show, etc. Bye again... On 2/21/2015 2:49 PM, Judy in Ocala via wrote: > Thanks to Joanne Hintz who reminded me that images can be shared via > Dropbox. Ralph, take a look at this annotated screen shot and see if it > makes sense. > > The top half with the white background is a pedigree chart. The bottom half > with the blue background is a family group sheet. This is the way FTM 16 is > laid out. I've pointed to the admittedly obscure places that will close the > various panels. > > The Index and the family group sheet can be toggled on and off with one > click. You can also make the FGS larger or smaller by dragging the > horizontal line that separates it from the pedigree area. Position your > mouse pointer of the sizing lines until it looks like a double-headed > arrow. Then you can click and drag to your preferences. The pedigree area > (white background) can also be changed to display a family view instead. > Click the two buttons circled in red. > > I hope this does the trick for you. > > Judy in Ocala > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/lzm0kucv40t9cy5/2-21-2015%201-35-23%20PM.jpg?dl=0 > > PS. To future generations who may find this message in the archives, the > above link is probably broken by now. Sorry. > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Judy In Ocala <treewright@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Ralph, can you describe what you mean by "classic layout view"? In 2014 >> the 4 parts of the screen in the People area can be opened, closed, and >> re-sized to the user's preferences. Just drag the boundaries. If you close >> the right panel and index in the left panel you're left with a pedigree at >> the top and a family group sheet at the bottom. That's how the display >> looks in v. 16. >> >> Would that do what you want? >> >> 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/

FTM 16 is the one I keep working on. I also keep a latest version running to see if it is worthwhile abandoning FTM 16. Waiting for them to implement a "Classic layout view" in 2014 that reproduces the FTM 16 look and actions. Any hope? Ralph Yes I have been using this software for decades > -----Original Message----- > From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via > Sent: 21 February 2015 11:00 > To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate > > > I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen ;-) > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > Connie P.S. Maybe if > > enough of us senior citizens complain enough, they will go back and > > support v16. > > ********************************** > 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

Some of us who stick with FTM16 have seen no need for all the extra 'stuff' that techie users love. I am an old lady (83) and I do not have time left to figure out an easy way to use any of the 20xx programs. I use my time researching and refining. That said, I have 2012 but only use it to search the web for matches. Unfortunately it does a poor job, the first things it finds for me are public FTM trees. Then at the end of the list, maybe, will be one or two vital record finds. The interesting thing is when I click on a vital record find Ancestry.com invariably gives me multiple other records, census, SSDI, birth & death records, findagrave, etc. Not all things for all searches but enough to make me ask why 2012 can't find them. I got 2012 because of the way it handles sources when making a book, but the way it does 'facts' is a disgrace. It made them all into an undecipherable paragraph, not a list and that cancels out the excellent source report for me. FTM16 with large databases works just fine, the workaround for printing is dead simple. Barb >> Perhaps another way to ask my question is: if you could write a wish list >> for the next version of FTM, what would it include? >> >> Judy in Ocala >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Judy in Ocala <treewright@gmail.com> >> Date: February 20, 2015 at 11:47:13 PM EST >> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com >> Subject: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate >> >> 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 >

Mary, Please check the ODR report settings. I am guessing that you have selected Preferred ONLY. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Mary W. Ellis via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:29 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, You can type into the birth, death, and marriage fields in the People Workspace, Tree View. Don't know what RCIEPS means, haven't seen that one, As to the Report, You do NOT have to wait for it to complete. You can change what ever you want BEFORE the report completes. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Mary W. Ellis via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: Judy in Ocala <treewright@gmail.com>; ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate This screen looks good, but the bottom part can't be typed in except for the first entry of the name. After that you have to use the panel on the right side, so it seems kind of silly to hid it. By the way, I don't have LDS turned on, what does that RCIEPS in the parents block mean. I see it is on each child also. Mary Ellis Oh just to mention it... I was a programmer before I retired and if we had written a report that you had to run BEFORE you told it the parameters you wanted, they would have run us off the property. It is so strange to me that it is this way. It would make so much more sense to pick what subset of people or the whole file a report is being run for, what facts you want show, etc.

Hi Arnie I don't know why you would thing a link or url would not show up It did in your previous post with no problem But thanks for posting the details which is preferred anyway Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 21/02/2015 15:21, Arnie-Krause via wrote: > I just sent a reply to Judy that included a link to the following notes. > However, I don't expect to see that published as it has a link. To allow > others to see my feelings on FTM-2014, I am including the notes

Barb, Did you know that you can turn OFF the hints for Ancestry Member Trees (AMT)? I have a 95% Hint accuracy rate. The other 5% are my errors. I do NOT see any AMT hints, nor do I want to. BUT, I can turn them on with a mouse click. I would NOT use any Version 16 End Notes. That are totally wrong, and most of that is my fault. With FTM2014 (and FTM2012) using the Source Template feature resolved that problem. Since we are asking for specifics, here. Please provide and example: for: "It made them all into an undecipherable paragraph, not a list and that cancels out the excellent source report for me." I'd like to know, exactly, what that means. AND you CAN include a List of Facts. Maybe the details of what you are asking for might very well be worth a follow up. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Barbara Christie via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 5:38 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] Fwd: FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate Some of us who stick with FTM16 have seen no need for all the extra 'stuff' that techie users love. I am an old lady (83) and I do not have time left to figure out an easy way to use any of the 20xx programs. I use my time researching and refining. That said, I have 2012 but only use it to search the web for matches. Unfortunately it does a poor job, the first things it finds for me are public FTM trees. Then at the end of the list, maybe, will be one or two vital record finds. The interesting thing is when I click on a vital record find Ancestry.com invariably gives me multiple other records, census, SSDI, birth & death records, findagrave, etc. Not all things for all searches but enough to make me ask why 2012 can't find them. I got 2012 because of the way it handles sources when making a book, but the way it does 'facts' is a disgrace. It made them all into an undecipherable paragraph, not a list and that cancels out the excellent source report for me. FTM16 with large databases works just fine, the workaround for printing is dead simple.

Thanks to Joanne Hintz who reminded me that images can be shared via Dropbox. Ralph, take a look at this annotated screen shot and see if it makes sense. The top half with the white background is a pedigree chart. The bottom half with the blue background is a family group sheet. This is the way FTM 16 is laid out. I've pointed to the admittedly obscure places that will close the various panels. The Index and the family group sheet can be toggled on and off with one click. You can also make the FGS larger or smaller by dragging the horizontal line that separates it from the pedigree area. Position your mouse pointer of the sizing lines until it looks like a double-headed arrow. Then you can click and drag to your preferences. The pedigree area (white background) can also be changed to display a family view instead. Click the two buttons circled in red. I hope this does the trick for you. Judy in Ocala https://www.dropbox.com/s/lzm0kucv40t9cy5/2-21-2015%201-35-23%20PM.jpg?dl=0 PS. To future generations who may find this message in the archives, the above link is probably broken by now. Sorry. On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Judy In Ocala <treewright@gmail.com> wrote: > Ralph, can you describe what you mean by "classic layout view"? In 2014 > the 4 parts of the screen in the People area can be opened, closed, and > re-sized to the user's preferences. Just drag the boundaries. If you close > the right panel and index in the left panel you're left with a pedigree at > the top and a family group sheet at the bottom. That's how the display > looks in v. 16. > > Would that do what you want? > > Judy in Ocala > >

Just a few thoughts as I try to update a book produced in 2005 and updated through v.16 ... Genealogy report - inline sources are preferable for a general audience. If only endnotes are available, I won't print them. The genealogists can ask for an exception if they want, but the kindest word from the rest is "trash" and they won't flip to the pages. Photos that were added aren't worth much - too small, though supposedly they can be increased in size but only some were resized when I tested that option. When the books/reports are imported from v.16, why can't the report options - at least paper size, margins, font & size, nbr generations - be imported. Early on, I asked that question - answer was that they were using a 3rd party text processor and couldn't get the parameters, but that seemed bogus. The parameters are no doubt being saved in FTM and could be read, translated if necessary, to the new format. Descendant chart (horizontal) - text is only to the right or left of the photo. Option I used in v.16 placed the text above the photo. It took less horizontal space, looked better (OK, that's an opinion), and a large family fit nicely on a tabloid foldout. Even if I do a book now in v.2014, I'll go back and do this chart on v.16! Book - Table of Contents - if the next page starts a section and should start on the right-hand (odd) page, the blank page behind the TOC is not generated and pagination is off in the entire book. (Why wasn't this patched long ago?) Book - Place Holder - cannot set the number of pages, or I'd have used 1 as a temporary 'fix' for the TOC, or at least tried it. (Again, why is this still a problem? I know doing the new stuff is more fun, but get rid of the annoying little problems!) Smart Story used as the blank text item - this should be WYSIWYG but it doesn't work for all output options. I don't have time to retest it today, but I believe the PDF output is one where it appears the margins are adjusted by the system, or maybe applied twice. It takes a lot of back and forth to get a page to "stick" within margins for output - also somewhat a problem in v.16, but seemed to be limited to the PDF writer. Full Adobe instead of the one with FTM worked correctly when the one with v.16 FTM did not. Data entry screen - Lower part of the screen, not the chart ... select parents of one of the couple displayed, but if there are multiple marriages another of the spouses and other children can be displayed. BJ did some testing and I think determined that a 'preferred' spouse was being brought up instead of the couple that should display. I'd like to have an option to hide the Facts I'll never use so I don't have to scroll through the extras. As a global setting, it would be easy to go back and add in one if I change my mind. No doubt there's more. Development should sit down with the reports side-by-side and compare options. In fact, they should learn the old system and do this before they start coding. You're going to tell me it's too late for that, aren't you? <G> Joanne On 2/20/2015 10:47 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 > >

PS. Sorry I can't attach a screen shot to illustrate. Judy in Ocala > On Feb 21, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ralph Jepson via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > FTM 16 is the one I keep working on. > I also keep a latest version running to see if it is worthwhile abandoning > FTM 16. > Waiting for them to implement a "Classic layout view" in 2014 that > reproduces the FTM 16 look and actions. > Any hope? > > Ralph > > Yes I have been using this software for decades

Ralph, can you describe what you mean by "classic layout view"? In 2014 the 4 parts of the screen in the People area can be opened, closed, and re-sized to the user's preferences. Just drag the boundaries. If you close the right panel and index in the left panel you're left with a pedigree at the top and a family group sheet at the bottom. That's how the display looks in v. 16. Would that do what you want? Judy in Ocala > On Feb 21, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ralph Jepson via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > FTM 16 is the one I keep working on. > I also keep a latest version running to see if it is worthwhile abandoning > FTM 16. > Waiting for them to implement a "Classic layout view" in 2014 that > reproduces the FTM 16 look and actions. > Any hope? > > Ralph > > Yes I have been using this software for decades > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:ftm-tech-bounces@rootsweb.com] >> On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via >> Sent: 21 February 2015 11:00 >> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate >> >> >> I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen ;-) >> >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> >> Connie P.S. Maybe if >>> enough of us senior citizens complain enough, they will go back and >>> support v16. >> >> ********************************** >> 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

Hi Mary, I fully agree, therefore I have stayed with v16. I have 2014 just to compare. Regards Ole 2015-02-21 9:18 GMT+01:00 Mary W. Ellis via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com>: > 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 > -- Ole P. Bielefeldt www.familytreemaker.dk

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that to happen ;-) Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) Connie P.S. Maybe if > enough of us senior citizens complain enough, they will go back and > support v16.

Susan, Please look at the person where their parents are not showing up, in the People Workspace, Person View, Relationship Tab and check the relationship between that person and their parents. Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Susan Duerst via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 1:21 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] The Great Debate I keep current with new versions and for the most part, I like the new version better or at least as well; however, there is one report function I keep hoping to find in each upgrade. I used to be able to add parents of spouse/partners to the Descendant and Outline Descendant reports. Some parents now show up in the Descendant report but not all. It seems to depend on what other data is present. (It's been a while since really looked at exactly what seemed to be happening, so please forgive me if I don't have it exactly correct now.) I can add parents' names as a note in the Descendant report, but there are no alternatives in the Outline Descendant report. My families have a lot of duplicate names. Being able to include parents' names tells me which Elizabeth or John is correct.

Judy, I did a blog post a while ago, perhaps this will help Ralph answer your question. http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2014/03/family-view-version-16-and-ftm2014.html Russ ___________________________ Mailto:rworthington@att.net ________________________________ From: Judy In Ocala via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> To: Ralph Jepson <ralph.jepson@btinternet.com>; "ftm-tech@rootsweb.com" <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 12:10 PM Subject: Re: [FTM-TECH] FTM 16 v. 2014: The Great Debate Ralph, can you describe what you mean by "classic layout view"? In 2014 the 4 parts of the screen in the People area can be opened, closed, and re-sized to the user's preferences. Just drag the boundaries. If you close the right panel and index in the left panel you're left with a pedigree at the top and a family group sheet at the bottom. That's how the display looks in v. 16. Would that do what you want? Judy in Ocala > On Feb 21, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ralph Jepson via <ftm-tech@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > FTM 16 is the one I keep working on. > I also keep a latest version running to see if it is worthwhile abandoning > FTM 16. > Waiting for them to implement a "Classic layout view" in 2014 that > reproduces the FTM 16 look and actions. > Any hope?