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 ***************************************