John Yes, large is a very elastic word and is not just related to individuals. I assume that by records you mean facts and not the report that you get when you compact, which I assume counts name and the like as well, although there must for instance have been a change in the counting between FTM2009 and FTM2010 as I "lost: about 600,000 records. I have at this moment 107, 617 individuals which is less than yours, but I have just shy of 590,000 facts. As an example of how those facts are made up there are some 18,000 residence facts deriving from the 1930 US census. Looking forward I would estimate that one in four of my individuals was alive and living in the US at the time of the 1940 census I have struggled for years with FTM. Unlike many who regard FTM16 as great, it used to crash a lot for me. with my database then split into two of 25 and 35 thousand respectively. I moved to Macs prior to the release of the Mac version. We were told it was written from the bottom up to exploit the Mac. Written for Intel based Macs that are natively 64 bit it is a 32 bit program and not even a Mac program, but a .Net application like the Windows version and only runs because it has a cross platform runtime library embodied. Four minutes for the filter dialogue box to come up, couldn't compact, couldn't export (files or gedcoms), couldn't even "set spouse order", runs out of memory in as little as ten minutes. I am currently managing fairly well with FTM2010 running under Windows on my Macs. I am waiting to see what happens with the next Mac version, but the likelihood is that however much I like FTM apart from performance I shall move to something else and never come back. At least other program producers attempt to fix problems and don't abandon a version after 12 months. Tony -----Original Message----- From: John Okerson Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 8:09 PM To: ftm-tech@rootsweb.com Subject: [FTM-TECH] FTM 2012 seems considerably enhanced to me! I chose to look at FTM first because of its ability to directly import TMG files and because of the TreeSync feature. >From what I've seen so far FTM has some great features but... their >implementation of those features sometimes leave a lot to be desired. The speed issue, inability to handle large files with lots of media, and the seemingly instability ( lots of crashes and having to re-install)are worrying. The question of FTM 2012 and 'large files' is one which was near and dear to my heart. Release version 388 accommodates my file handily. I have a bit over 130,9XX unique names, plus about 5,XXX akas. My file doesn't have much media, I will admit - 677 to be precise, and none are very large - even so in comparison to FTM 16 which is my current, primary genie program, the file size reduction afforded by moving media out of the database file is very handy! I have about 52,XXX families, 191,XXX records and about 10,XXX sources. LARGE is a word used by many, with differing interpretations. I have not tried with release 388 yet, but have used databases of 250K, 450K and 845K people with FTM 16. I found that if one monitors memory usage by FTM 2012, you'll have a good clue as to how to improve its performance. If you use Task Manager, you can see just how much RAM the program is using. Opening the program without loading a file generates a moderately low memory usage, and has delivered the best performance for me. On the other hand, closing a data file (and keeping FTM 2012 open) often results in a significantly higher memory usage at that point and possible failure to complete with a large file. Once memory usage goes above some threshold, the probability of 'failure' skyrockets IMHO. If 2012 hits above 1.2M of RAM used (up to about 1.5M) then failure might be shortly at hand. An interesting sidelight is that the old limitation of only opening 2 different datasets (from FTM 16 anyway) is not there in 2012. At one point, I had 5 different datasets loaded at one time - an Intel Sandy Bridge i7 2600 processor and 16 GB of physical RAM are in my primary computer running Windows 7 Professional SP1. I have yet to try that with build 388, but expect its performance will be similar. John Okerson Memphis, TN ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Online Support for Family Tree Maker Version 16 and earlier http://pastftm.custhelp.com/ Version 2008 - 2011 http://ftm.custhelp.com/ ------------------------------- 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 assume that by records you mean facts and not the report that you get when you compact, which I assume counts name and the like as well, although there must for instance have been a change in the counting between FTM2009 and FTM2010 as I "lost: about 600,000 records. FTM 2012 shows those figure. I had 2008, was given 2009 for the reasons we all recall. I never did 2010 nor 2011. Now I have 2012 and run it alongside 16, but with different data files, obviously. > I moved to Macs prior to the release of the Mac version. We were told it > was written from the bottom up to exploit the Mac. Written for Intel based Macs that are natively 64 bit it is a 32 bit program and not even a Mac program, but a .Net application like the Windows version and only runs because it has a cross platform runtime library embodied. Four minutes for the filter dialogue box to come up, couldn't compact, couldn't export (files or gedcoms), couldn't even "set spouse order", runs out of memory in as little as ten minutes. > I am currently managing fairly well with FTM2010 running under Windows on > my Macs. I am waiting to see what happens with the next Mac version, but the likelihood is that however much I like FTM apart from performance I shall move to something else and never come back. At least other program producers attempt to fix problems and don't abandon a version after 12 months. It certainly seems that Ancestry.com considers the annual 'upgrade' to be their path of choice.