In article <LnSij.25530$UX2.8799@trnddc08>, Wes Groleau <groleau+nntp@freeshell.org> wrote: >Robert Grumbine wrote: >> One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH >> Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, >> nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. > >I saw a link yesterday to something that _claims_ to implement it. Where? And can I run it on unix/mac? -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Robert Grumbine wrote: > Oh well, a new person to the field, with ideas shaped by another, > to whine some about what's available. Nothing new there. But maybe > my whining can provide targets (some things I complain about might > be solved) or, as we continue, some support for doing certain things > could develop. I could write some suitable software to implement > certain ideas, if it looked worthwhile. > > I've done some back reading as I get into the subject, including > the gedcom/xml arguments, and am not really trying to go back to those. > > One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH > Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, > nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. > > I come to the computing/data from a science field (oceanography) > and one of the things which has promptly bothered me is that the > software available (paf, legacy, reunion) seems far too aimed > at conclusions rather than evidence, and even more poorly aimed > at representing source information trails. > > The evidence trail is something particularly bothersome > to me. From my field, let's say our original observation is that it > was 22.2 C. Now, if that was all we had, we'd be ticked, because it > doesn't tell us when the observation was taken, where it was, or > how it was taken. All these metadata are important, and usually you can > get them (with sufficient patience and phone calls, rather like > genealogy in that, it seems). > > But that is only the proverbial tip of the ice berg. Because > that 22.2 C observation (with rest of support) is almost certainly not > exactly the number we're going to use for analyzing the air-sea > heat flux, or sea surface temperature, or whatever it is we're doing. > The thing is, each observing method has biases. We know this, so > adjust for them as relevant to our problem at hand. The problem that > we _could_ run in to is that the 22.2 we now see is not the actual > original observation. Someone could already have made the adjustment > for intake temperature bias. How we avoid this is that the data > (are supposed to be) are given histories. The original observation > (and its metadata) are augmented by a new value and _its_ metadata > (22.4 C after George applied John Doe's intake temperature bias > correction, say), and this additional information then follows along. > I could decide that John Doe's correction method is not the best, > and instead apply, myself, Mary Roe's -- to the original 22.2, now > that I know the 22.4 was after somebody else applied a correction I > don't like to arrive at it. Not clear to me yet (I've been doing > some light reading of the data model document, but not carefully > nor complete) whether the GENTECH supports this sort of consideration. > > A different problem is that the typical software treatment seems > to be that it has little or no ability to track exactly what the > evidence and sources are. For instance, it seems that if I import a > file from someone and they cite a census record, I have my choice of > ignoring that _my_ source was Jane Genealogist, not the orignal record, > and preserve the census citation, or I can _add_ Jane as a source. > Now this is a problem, in my mind. When I look later, it will show > two sources -- the census, and Jane. But my real state of knowledge > is only that Jane _said_ the census had some information. This isn't > two independant sources, it's 1 source, 1 step removed from the > primary document. (Please, no jumping on that usage, I realize that > there's a trade meaning to the term 'primary document', and census > isn't an example.) What I want the software to do is, when I import > a file that has citations, mark that my source is Jane, and her > sources were ... whatever she said. If I'm making a 20th generation > copy/import (of a copy of a copy ...), then the software should show > the prior 19 importers as well as the original person who looked at > a document. GENTECH seems to support this concern of mine, but > with no implementation thereof, I'm still sol. > > First off -- PAF, Legacy, Reunion are all lineage-linked databases. You'll probably be slightly happier with one of the EVENT-linked databases; I know there are at least two, I remember only one name (The Master Genealogist). Second, when those older programs were being written, a permanent way to record conclusions is what was wanted. NO ONE wanted to have to keep handwriting copies for the family if the computer would print it out for you. TMG came along later, when computer genealogy wasn't quite as insular as it had been. But, I'd venture to suggest that out of any 100 genealogists at least 51% _still_ want a program to record their conclusions so they can print it out. This doesn't mean that 49% is insignificant, it just means it's the minority. Now. I like the concept (I can hear people falling over in droves) of tracking who-said-what-and-when-did-he-say-it. However, let's bring a touch of realism in ... I'll even play fair and use one of my smaller databases as the example. Database L has 2000 names; each name has one source per datapoint (i.e., a source for the name, for the parent relationship, for the bd, for the bp, for the spouse, for the md, for the mp, for the dd, for the dp), which is 10 sources per name, potentially 20,000 source entries. By the time that data is re-tagged with each of 20 iterations, it is going to be unmanageable. The more supporting documentation (i.e., complete extracts of books, images of documents, etc etc) you include, the faster it will become unmanageable. I tried doing it manually for one project, but it palled very quickly. I still like the idea of knowing where you got it, but I'm unconvinced it is worth the programmer's effort or the user's effort of maintaining the chain-of-evidence. Cheryl

Robert Grumbine wrote: > One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH > Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, > nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. I saw a link yesterday to something that _claims_ to implement it. -- Wes Groleau Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Robert Grumbine wrote: > Oh well, a new person to the field, with ideas shaped by another, <snip> > software available (paf, legacy, reunion) seems far too aimed > at conclusions rather than evidence, and even more poorly aimed > at representing source information trails. It didn't take you long to spot the problem! -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk

Oh well, a new person to the field, with ideas shaped by another, to whine some about what's available. Nothing new there. But maybe my whining can provide targets (some things I complain about might be solved) or, as we continue, some support for doing certain things could develop. I could write some suitable software to implement certain ideas, if it looked worthwhile. I've done some back reading as I get into the subject, including the gedcom/xml arguments, and am not really trying to go back to those. One interesting thing to me was the mention of the GENTECH Genealogical Data Model. The sad news there being that, apparently, nobody actually implements it. Or anything particularly close. I come to the computing/data from a science field (oceanography) and one of the things which has promptly bothered me is that the software available (paf, legacy, reunion) seems far too aimed at conclusions rather than evidence, and even more poorly aimed at representing source information trails. The evidence trail is something particularly bothersome to me. From my field, let's say our original observation is that it was 22.2 C. Now, if that was all we had, we'd be ticked, because it doesn't tell us when the observation was taken, where it was, or how it was taken. All these metadata are important, and usually you can get them (with sufficient patience and phone calls, rather like genealogy in that, it seems). But that is only the proverbial tip of the ice berg. Because that 22.2 C observation (with rest of support) is almost certainly not exactly the number we're going to use for analyzing the air-sea heat flux, or sea surface temperature, or whatever it is we're doing. The thing is, each observing method has biases. We know this, so adjust for them as relevant to our problem at hand. The problem that we _could_ run in to is that the 22.2 we now see is not the actual original observation. Someone could already have made the adjustment for intake temperature bias. How we avoid this is that the data (are supposed to be) are given histories. The original observation (and its metadata) are augmented by a new value and _its_ metadata (22.4 C after George applied John Doe's intake temperature bias correction, say), and this additional information then follows along. I could decide that John Doe's correction method is not the best, and instead apply, myself, Mary Roe's -- to the original 22.2, now that I know the 22.4 was after somebody else applied a correction I don't like to arrive at it. Not clear to me yet (I've been doing some light reading of the data model document, but not carefully nor complete) whether the GENTECH supports this sort of consideration. A different problem is that the typical software treatment seems to be that it has little or no ability to track exactly what the evidence and sources are. For instance, it seems that if I import a file from someone and they cite a census record, I have my choice of ignoring that _my_ source was Jane Genealogist, not the orignal record, and preserve the census citation, or I can _add_ Jane as a source. Now this is a problem, in my mind. When I look later, it will show two sources -- the census, and Jane. But my real state of knowledge is only that Jane _said_ the census had some information. This isn't two independant sources, it's 1 source, 1 step removed from the primary document. (Please, no jumping on that usage, I realize that there's a trade meaning to the term 'primary document', and census isn't an example.) What I want the software to do is, when I import a file that has citations, mark that my source is Jane, and her sources were ... whatever she said. If I'm making a 20th generation copy/import (of a copy of a copy ...), then the software should show the prior 19 importers as well as the original person who looked at a document. GENTECH seems to support this concern of mine, but with no implementation thereof, I'm still sol. -- Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

John East wrote: > Denis Beauregard wrote: >> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:27:02 GMT, John East <john.east2@ntlworld.com> >> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >> >> >>> kraut wrote: >>> >>>> Will Family Tree Maker 2008 run on Win 98se?? >>>> >>>> I tryed it and could not get it to run. Kept getting some message >>>> about debugging something. Finally went back to 2006 version. >>>> >>>> TIA >>>> >>>> I cannot get the darned thing to run on XP! >>> >>> After crashing my computer on installation and a call to their >>> 'helpline' I managed to load the programme but now when I try to run >>> it a message says that it has a problem and has to close!! (That is >>> the so-called upgrade version. >>> >>> Sorry if this is old hat but I have just joined this group. >> >> >> Perhaps, the "upgrade" needs that you first install the original >> version, then to upgrade, instead of installing from scratch the >> upgraded version ? >> >> Also, you should start a new tread as netters will think you are >> running it from Win 98 (which may be not true). >> >> >> Denis >> > Fair point Denis - I am on XP pro! with SP2?? FTM 2008 is OK on mine make certain you get the lates FTM sp 2 the older one was withdrawn probbaly best to clean install FTM 2008 then the new SP 2 I can't tell you my FTM 2008 build number because I am cat sitting and us in another machine in another appartment there are beteer places to discuss FTM 2008 ********************************** List information page http://lists.rootsweb.com/index/other/Software/FTM-TECH.html Online Support for Family Tree Maker http://pastftm.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 and http://boards.rootsweb.com/topics.software.famtreemaker/mb.ashx "I had this problem on my pre-patched, out of the box version. I ended up doing a de-install then re-install and I was able to get the program to run. On the first successful run, the patch was applied and I had no problems. Running WinXP SP2. I was also informed that I had to install the .NET framework as I was doing my initial install." good luck Hugh W

Denis Beauregard wrote: > On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:27:02 GMT, John East <john.east2@ntlworld.com> > wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: > > >>kraut wrote: >> >>>Will Family Tree Maker 2008 run on Win 98se?? >>> >>>I tryed it and could not get it to run. Kept getting some message >>>about debugging something. Finally went back to 2006 version. >>> >>>TIA >>> >>>I cannot get the darned thing to run on XP! >> >>After crashing my computer on installation and a call to their >>'helpline' I managed to load the programme but now when I try to run it >>a message says that it has a problem and has to close!! (That is the >>so-called upgrade version. >> >>Sorry if this is old hat but I have just joined this group. > > > Perhaps, the "upgrade" needs that you first install the original > version, then to upgrade, instead of installing from scratch the > upgraded version ? > > Also, you should start a new tread as netters will think you are > running it from Win 98 (which may be not true). > > > Denis > Fair point Denis - I am on XP pro!

John East wrote: > kraut wrote: >> Will Family Tree Maker 2008 run on Win 98se?? >> >> I tryed it and could not get it to run. Kept getting some message >> about debugging something. Finally went back to 2006 version. >> >> TIA >> >> I cannot get the darned thing to run on XP! > > After crashing my computer on installation and a call to their > 'helpline' I managed to load the programme but now when I try to run it > a message says that it has a problem and has to close!! (That is the > so-called upgrade version. > > Sorry if this is old hat but I have just joined this group. what system are you using? Win98 is no longer supported by Microsoft read what is says on the box about system and computer requirements Hugh W -- For genealogy and help with family and local history in Bristol and district http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Brycgstow/ http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks GENEALOGE http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:27:02 GMT, John East <john.east2@ntlworld.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >kraut wrote: >> Will Family Tree Maker 2008 run on Win 98se?? >> >> I tryed it and could not get it to run. Kept getting some message >> about debugging something. Finally went back to 2006 version. >> >> TIA >> >>I cannot get the darned thing to run on XP! > >After crashing my computer on installation and a call to their >'helpline' I managed to load the programme but now when I try to run it >a message says that it has a problem and has to close!! (That is the >so-called upgrade version. > >Sorry if this is old hat but I have just joined this group. Perhaps, the "upgrade" needs that you first install the original version, then to upgrade, instead of installing from scratch the upgraded version ? Also, you should start a new tread as netters will think you are running it from Win 98 (which may be not true). Denis -- 0 Denis Beauregard - /\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ |\ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ / | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008) oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)

kraut wrote: > Will Family Tree Maker 2008 run on Win 98se?? > > I tryed it and could not get it to run. Kept getting some message > about debugging something. Finally went back to 2006 version. > > TIA > >I cannot get the darned thing to run on XP! After crashing my computer on installation and a call to their 'helpline' I managed to load the programme but now when I try to run it a message says that it has a problem and has to close!! (That is the so-called upgrade version. Sorry if this is old hat but I have just joined this group.

Homo erectus lived from an estimated 2,000,000 down to 100,000 years ago. Java and Peking man are included among Homo erectus. Locations: Europe, India, China, Southeastern Asia, and Africa. Height: 5 feet 2 inches to 6 feet; Weight: 100 to 150 pounds. Fossils: Jaws, teeth, and an occasional skull cap and thighbone have been uncovered. In 1984, a well-preserved almost complete erectus was discovered in Kenya. Remarkably similar erectus bones and tools have surfaced in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Brain Capacity: Donald Johanson says 850 cubic centimeters to 900 c.c. Richard Leakey claims 900 c.c. to 1100 c.c.. compared to 350 - 400 c.c. for australopithecines, 650 c.c. for Homo habilis and 1400 c.c for humans. It is thought that erectus' brain weighed around seven ounces at birth. It would mature at thirty-two ounces compared to forty-five ounces for an adult human. Johanson describes Homo erectus as "tall, thin, and barrel-chested." Their weight and height would place them in the top 17 percent of modern human males. Based on reconstructed skeleton of a twelve-year- old male, Johanson believes erectus had a body shaped like many African groups today. But there were differences.... http://groups.google.com/group/familytreesyvs

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=. harassment at work -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Once I. stopped watching television and listening to the radio at the end of 1990, "they" had to find other ways. of committing abuses. So they took what must be for them a tried and tested route; they get at. you by subversion of those around you. Since they wouldn't be able to. do that with my family or friends, that meant getting at. people in the workplace to be their mouthpieces and do. their dirty work for them. They supplied my employers in Oxford. with details from what was going on in my private life,. and what I and other people had said at my home and accommodation in Oxford. So people at work repeated. verbatim words which had been. said in my home, and repeated what I'd been doing recently. Often the most trivial things, the ones from your domestic life, are the. ones which hurt most. One manager in particular at Oxford continuously. abused me for. ten months with verbal sexual abuse, swearing, and threats to terminate my employment. After ten months I was forced to seek psychiatric. help and start taking medication, and was away from work for two months. I. spoke later with a solicitor about. what had happened at that company; he advised it was only. possible to take action if you had left the company as a result of harassment, and such an action. would have to be started very soon after leaving. Over a year later the same manager picked on another new worker,. with even more serious results; that employee tried to. commit suicide with an overdose as a result of the ill-treatment, and. was forced to leave his job. But he didn't take action against the company, either. Abuse at. work is comparable to. that elsewhere in that tangible evidence is difficult to produce, and the. abusers will always have their denials ready when challenged. And. even if a court accepts what you say happened, it still remains to prove that abuse causes the type of breakdown I had at. the end of 1992. In a recent case before a. British court, a former member of the Army brought a case against others. who had maltreated him ten years previously. Although the court accepted that abuse. had occurred, it did not agree that depressive illness. necessarily followed, and denied justice to the. plaintiff. 3065

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -= why the security services?. -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= You may ask, why do I think the "they" referred. to are the security services? Is there. any evidence that there is a single source, as opposed to a loosely based "whispering campaign". amongst many people? Even if there is a single source, is there any evidence that. "they" are professional "buggers" as opposed to amateurs, or perhaps. people working for a privately funded. organization? a) As to the question of a single. source versus something more fragmented; it is quite obvious that there is a single source from the way. the campaign has been carried out. Since things have been repeated verbatim. which were said in my home, there must be one. group which does the watching and listening. Since on several occasions (mainly during travel) people. have been planted in close. proximity and rehearsed in what they were to say, it follows that someone must have done the planning for that,. and again a single source is. indicated. b) So why couldn't it be amateurs? Why. couldn't it be a private organisation, for example a private. detective agency paid to manage the campaign and. undertake the technical aspects? Some detective agencies are unscrupulous as has. been proved on the occasions in the past when they've been exposed or caught;. they too can have access to the bugging technology deployed;. and there are reported cases of MI5 paying private eyes to do their dirty work (against peace campaigners and similar enemies of. the state) on the understanding that if they were caught then they. could deny all knowledge. Why couldn't that be the. case? The main factor pointing to direct security service involvement. (as opposed to amateurs or MI5 proxies) is. the breadth of their access to the media in particular, and the fact that. the television companies are so involved in the campaign.. The BBC would not directly invade someone's home themselves, since it would not be within their remit to. allocate personnel or financial resources to do so. An organisation of their. stature would not take part in a campaign set up by private sources.. The only people they would take material from would be the security services, presumably on the. assumption that if the cat ever. flew out of the bag yowling it would be MI5 who would take the. consequences. State sponsorship for these acts of psychological terrorism. is also indicated by duration; support for over six years for a. team of three or four people would be beyond. the means and will of most private sources. The viciousness of the. slanders and personal denigration also points to MI5; they traditionally "protect" the. British state from politicians of the wrong hue by character assassination, and in this case. are using their tried and tested methods to. murder with words an enemy they have invented for. themselves. And there are. precedents. Diana and Hewitt were alleged to have been filmed "at it" by an Army intelligence team which. had operated in Northern Ireland, these allegations were. made by someone called Jones who had been on the team. His statements. were denied by the defence establishment who tried to character-assassinate by describing him. as the "Jones twins". Funny how. if you tell the truth, then you must be ill, isn't it? Thought only. communists behaved like that? Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to by someone in. the army who revealed the existence of videotapes of him. and Diana, and that the tapes would be published if any attempt was made. by them to resume their association. 644

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=. why the security services? -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= You may ask, why do I. think the "they" referred to are the security services? Is. there any evidence that there is a single source, as opposed to a loosely based "whispering. campaign" amongst many people? Even if there is a single source, is. there any evidence that "they" are professional "buggers" as opposed to amateurs, or perhaps people. working for a privately funded. organization? a) As to the question of a. single source versus something more fragmented; it is quite obvious that there is a single source from the. way the campaign has been carried out. Since things have been repeated verbatim. which were said in my home, there must be one group which does the. watching and listening. Since on several occasions (mainly during travel). people have been planted in close proximity and rehearsed in what they were. to say, it follows that someone must have. done the planning for that, and again a single source is. indicated. b) So why. couldn't it be amateurs? Why couldn't it be a private organisation, for. example a private detective agency paid to manage the campaign and undertake the technical aspects? Some. detective agencies are unscrupulous as has been proved on the occasions in the. past when they've been exposed or. caught; they too can have access to the bugging technology deployed; and there are reported cases of MI5 paying private eyes to. do their dirty work (against peace campaigners and similar enemies. of the state) on the understanding that if. they were caught then they could deny all knowledge. Why couldn't that. be the case? The main. factor pointing to direct security service involvement (as opposed to amateurs or MI5 proxies) is the breadth of. their access to the media in particular, and the fact that the television companies are. so involved in the. campaign. The BBC would not directly invade someone's home themselves, since it would not be within their remit to allocate personnel or. financial resources to. do so. An organisation of their stature would not take part in a campaign set up by private sources. The only people. they would take material. from would be the security services, presumably on the assumption that if the cat ever flew out of. the bag yowling it would be MI5 who would take. the consequences. State sponsorship for these acts of psychological terrorism is. also indicated by duration; support for over six years for. a team of three or four people would be beyond the means and will of most private. sources. The. viciousness of the slanders and personal denigration also points to MI5; they traditionally "protect" the British state from. politicians of the wrong hue by character. assassination, and in this case are using their tried and tested methods. to murder with words an enemy they have invented for. themselves. And there are precedents. Diana and Hewitt were alleged to. have been filmed "at. it" by an Army intelligence team which had operated in Northern Ireland, these allegations were. made by someone called Jones who had been on the team. His. statements were denied by the defence establishment who tried to character-assassinate by. describing him as the "Jones twins". Funny how if you tell the truth, then you must be ill, isn't. it? Thought only communists behaved like. that? Hewitt later said that he'd been spoken to by someone in the army. who revealed the existence of videotapes of. him and Diana, and that the tapes would be published if any attempt was. made by them to resume their association. 644

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -= MI5: methods and. tactics -= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= They deliberately set out to harass in a way that would resemble. the symptoms. of schizophrenia, so that any report of the harassment would be taken as indicating mental. illness and "treated" accordingly. They never show their own faces; they only work. through proxies, in the media, among the public, and by manipulating people in the workplace. Since they do. not declare. their identity there is no evidence to initiate legal action against the security. services or anyone else. The only people you can prosecute are the proxies and they will deny. knowledge of any conspiracy. By repeatedly humiliating and abusing the. victim, they induced mental illness. This is the worst. form of human rights violation: making any statement of the harassment appear to. be symptomatic of the illness which they cause through the harassment. That this can happen, and. people collude by silence, is absolutely. horrifying. >From the beginning in June 1990 they set a pattern of harassment. which they have followed without change for the last six. years. They paint me as a "threat" to which people must. "react" (shades of Nazi persecution methods), while simultaneously portraying their hate campaign. on which they have spent over a million pounds. of taxpayers’ money as a "joke". The MI5 that breaks the law with the. silent complicity of the police is the same agency that is now seeking. a role in the fight against crime. Perhaps the real joke is the proposed involvement. in the implementation of justice of an organisation which commits criminal acts with secrecy. and disinterest for the legal. process. 644

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:32:43 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote: >Please could someone remind me how to print with PAF 4.0 > >I know I did it yesterday, but now I can't remember how I did it. > >When I try to print the printer that shows up does not exist, but the >selection thingy is greyed out, so I can't select another printer that does >exist. > >I suppose I should have written down what I did yesterday, but I didn't. Ah, i rediscovered... there is a menu called page setup, which i looked at three times before noticing the button labelled "Printer" right at the bottom. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:46:30 +0000, Chad Hanna <chad@chadhanna.co.uk> wrote: >Steve Hayes wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:46:14 +0000, Chad Hanna <chad@chadhanna.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> Someone has sent me some information in .dbf files (and some others, which may >>>> be indexes). Does anyone know which program may have been used to create these >>>> files, and which one could use to read them? >>>> >>>> >>> Originally Dbase - many programs will read Dbase files including: >> >> Good grief, did I forget so soon! >> >>> Microsoft Excel and Access 2000, Lotus Approach and 1-2-3, Paradox, >>> Buttonware PC-File >> >> I've got some of those somewhere, but not all of them seem to work with >> Windows XP. >> > >I haven't tried Paradox on Win XP and I'm not sure about PC-File. > >Base in OpenOffice should also work according to: >http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Base I tried it, and it did -- unfortunately without knowing the data model it would have taken days of work to link the files. Fortunately i managed to persuade the sender to send me a GEDCOM file instead. It showed it was produced by Rootsmagic, so I assume that that was the original application. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:32:43 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote: > Please could someone remind me how to print with PAF 4.0 > > I know I did it yesterday, but now I can't remember how I did it. > > When I try to print the printer that shows up does not exist, but the > selection thingy is greyed out, so I can't select another printer that does > exist. > I suppose I should have written down what I did yesterday, but I didn't. Sounds more like a windows setup issue than anything to do with PAF. Go into control panel and set your desired printer as the default, does that help?

Steve Hayes wrote: > Someone has sent me some information in .dbf files (and some others, which may > be indexes). Does anyone know which program may have been used to create these > files, and which one could use to read them? > > http://www.dbf2002.com/dbf-converter/ will probably do the job. Paul

On 01 Jan 2008 in soc.genealogy.computing, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 09:46:14 +0000, Chad Hanna > <chad@chadhanna.co.uk> wrote: > >>Steve Hayes wrote: >>> Someone has sent me some information in .dbf files (and some >>> others, which may be indexes). Does anyone know which program may >>> have been used to create these files, and which one could use to >>> read them? >> >>Originally Dbase - many programs will read Dbase files including: > > Good grief, did I forget so soon! > >>Microsoft Excel and Access 2000, Lotus Approach and 1-2-3, Paradox, >>Buttonware PC-File > > I've got some of those somewhere, but not all of them seem to work > with Windows XP. Foxbase also used (uses?) .dbf extensions, and although the file format was similar, not all programs which would work with dBase .dbfs would read Foxbase .dbfs. -- Joe Makowiec http://makowiec.org/ Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe