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 >

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.