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.

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.