On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:53:52 +0000, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Or get them to set up a dual-boot, XP & FreeDOS ( http://www.freedos.org >). You can install your old DOS programs into FreeDOS - it's 1990 again! When I'm doing my genealogy research I sometimes have three different DOS programs running in three different windows, alongside PAF, Legacy and Firefox. The thought having to reboot to switch between the is too ghastly to contemplate. If only they had continued to develop OS/2, which could run Windows in a window as well. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:19:56 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >Call your local HS, a Scout troop, or your teen-age grand child. ...for computers or if you locked yourself out of the car. It's amazin' what our 6 year old granddaughter can do with an iPhone - the 5 year old great grand is pretty good, too. Hugh

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:16:11 -0500, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: >Nahhh. Whew! he says wiping the cold sweat from his brow. It's tough to leave a program when you are used to it. The way most people pronounce it "used" should be "ust", like ust to. Hugh

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:26:08 -0500, kraut / larry stark <kraut3852@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:30:32 -0500, kraut / larry stark ><kraut3852@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Suggestions for a good freeware genealogy program that is not too >>complicated. > >I should have mentioned that I am using Windows XP and Family Tree >Maker which I started using when the DOS version was out which I would >still use if I could. I wish I would have kept my old DOS box!! I >would use it with the old DOS program!! I do not need all this >graphics crap and fancy backgrounds and stuff and being able to save >pics with it. I want something that keeps track of names, dates, >relatiionships, charts, ETC in a genealogy porgram (before someone >tells me I can use Excel or something). For me Family Tree Maker has >way more junk then I will ever use plus the screen is so busy if you >know what I mean. It takes me forever to find where I want to go in >it!!! Well, you have had several suggestions. >Usually someone brings up these DOS things that can be used in windows >to run DOS programs but before they do let me say I am not really into >computers and do not know how to do all that stuff. If you could do it with a DOS computer you can do it with a Windows one, but beware of the 64-bit versions, and stick to the 32-bit versions. One of the first things to do is to find where they have hidden the command prompt, and put it on your Windows "Desktop", where you can find it again. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

singhals wrote: > kraut / larry stark wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:30:32 -0500, kraut / larry stark >> <kraut3852@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Suggestions for a good freeware genealogy program that is not too >>> complicated. >> >> I should have mentioned that I am using Windows XP and Family Tree >> Maker which I started using when the DOS version was out which I would >> still use if I could. I wish I would have kept my old DOS box!! I >> would use it with the old DOS program!! I do not need all this >> graphics crap and fancy backgrounds and stuff and being able to save >> pics with it. I want something that keeps track of names, dates, >> relatiionships, charts, ETC in a genealogy porgram (before someone >> tells me I can use Excel or something). For me Family Tree Maker has >> way more junk then I will ever use plus the screen is so busy if you >> know what I mean. It takes me forever to find where I want to go in >> it!!! >> >> Usually someone brings up these DOS things that can be used in windows >> to run DOS programs but before they do let me say I am not really into >> computers and do not know how to do all that stuff. > > Call your local HS, a Scout troop, or your teen-age grand child. > > Tell them you "need to install a desktop shortcut to program that runs > under the Command Prompt. Can they do that for you?" If so, a loaded > extra-large Pizza and a 6-pack of cola will be provided during the process. Or get them to set up a dual-boot, XP & FreeDOS ( http://www.freedos.org ). You can install your old DOS programs into FreeDOS - it's 1990 again! -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:42:25 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >I tried PAF years ago and gave up on it quickly. Maybe I'll give it >another go as a second program to Legacy if gedcoms will transfer >precisely. I left out something I do about that, because it doesn't affect the original poster's request, but it relates to GEDCOM transfers. I use a third program, Family History System (FHS), by Philip Brown, 1993 version. I use it for entering data in my main file, and still do it because it does nice text file reports that I can post in mailing lists and newsgroups. I enter the stuff in there, and then transfer it to Legacy. But when I import the GEDCOM into Legacy, it scrambles the RINs. So I export the desired range of records, saw 17392 to 17843 from FHS, and import them into PAF 4 as a file called TRANSFER.PAF. I then import that file into Legacy, and it does it without scrampling the RINs. records 17392 and 17843, and all the ones in between, are exactly the same in FHS and Legacy. So I can use either program, depending on which kinds of reports I want. In other words, I use PAF to make up for deficiencies in the way Legacy imports GEDCOM files. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:50:26 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:42:25 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) >wrote: > >>I tried PAF years ago and gave up on it quickly. Maybe I'll give it >>another go as a second program to Legacy if gedcoms will transfer >>precisely. > >I left out something I do about that, because it doesn't affect the original >poster's request, but it relates to GEDCOM transfers. > >I use a third program, Family History System (FHS), by Philip Brown, 1993 >version. > >I use it for entering data in my main file, and still do it because it does >nice text file reports that I can post in mailing lists and newsgroups. I >enter the stuff in there, and then transfer it to Legacy. > >But when I import the GEDCOM into Legacy, it scrambles the RINs. > >So I export the desired range of records, saw 17392 to 17843 from FHS, and >import them into PAF 4 as a file called TRANSFER.PAF. I then import that file >into Legacy, and it does it without scrampling the RINs. records 17392 and >17843, and all the ones in between, are exactly the same in FHS and Legacy. So >I can use either program, depending on which kinds of reports I want. > >In other words, I use PAF to make up for deficiencies in the way Legacy >imports GEDCOM files. Thanks, Steve. I'm an old man. I may have been that good once, but I'm not now. Hugh

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:22:34 -0500, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote: >LO and Excel are 2 different softwares, working differently. MS, in >some idiot action, changed completely the menus of Excel making it a >nightmare to work with Excel and almost any other softwares (except >Chrome which has no menus). LO is more consistent with the 20 last >years of menu-operated softwares. > > >Denis That helps. I still use 2003 Excel. I use it for financial records, lists (clubs, high school classmates, Christmas cards, lab test reports, medical expenses) and not much else. As long as LO or OO will do .xls I think I'm okay. Word is different. I have written a newsletter (2003 Word) for retired military officers for 20 years and the recipients need to be able to open it - most use Word. I'm not sure why I'm so curious when MS Office 2003 is doing all I want. But I am. Thanks, Hugh

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:19:53 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >Although I don't use it, I think PAF would be your best choice. As >others have mentioned, you don't need to use all the "features". >That's true of any program, but based on what you've said, I think PAF >should fit well. I think RM and Legacy are top-rated programs in every review I see. PAF is mentioned sometimes. I think he should look at the freebie versions of those programs also - with maybe a reminder that most programs don't require one to use all the sophistication. Hugh

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:15:42 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >Hugh, I guess I don't understand the part about RM picking it up >twice. Do you mean if it's in quotes in Legacy, then GEDCOMed into RM, >it picks the quoted name twice? If that's the case, then I think what is >happening is that RM Thinks the quotes mean it's a nickname, which RM >puts in quotes and includes when presenting the name. Thanks, Charlie, you nailed it. >If you don't use nicknames, then it might be a fairly simple task to just remove all >the nicknames after importing the GEDCOM into RM. After saying that, >I'll admit I don't know how to do that (other then doing it on the >GEDCOM), but ther's a guy that posts often to the RM mail list that >has written lots of SQL scripts to operate on the Rm database, and I'm >sure he could give some suggestions. I do use a few nicknames. I have posted both problems to the RM user group. Some comments, but no cures were posted to the first problem. I didn't even get a response to the double name post. I "use" programs - I don't know how to "maneuver" the guts. That's the problem with growing up before computers. Bruce and I used to communicate a lot back in the old days when we were insulting the Banner Blue guy and he incorporated several features I requested. But I don't think he knows me any more. He outgrew me quickly. I like one thing in Legacy more than RM - the Family Screen. It presents more info and I think the navigation is much easier. It's an "old dog, new tricks" thing. Until a few years ago I made an effort to try every available genealogy program. After trying so many RM was my "first love" - I hate to give it up. I just tried PAF and it navigates the Family screen like RM - Bye, Bye. I'd like to say it is a good starter program but Cheryl would kick me where I bend in the middle. Hugh

kraut / larry stark wrote: > On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:30:32 -0500, kraut / larry stark > <kraut3852@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Suggestions for a good freeware genealogy program that is not too >> complicated. > > I should have mentioned that I am using Windows XP and Family Tree > Maker which I started using when the DOS version was out which I would > still use if I could. I wish I would have kept my old DOS box!! I > would use it with the old DOS program!! I do not need all this > graphics crap and fancy backgrounds and stuff and being able to save > pics with it. I want something that keeps track of names, dates, > relatiionships, charts, ETC in a genealogy porgram (before someone > tells me I can use Excel or something). For me Family Tree Maker has > way more junk then I will ever use plus the screen is so busy if you > know what I mean. It takes me forever to find where I want to go in > it!!! > > Usually someone brings up these DOS things that can be used in windows > to run DOS programs but before they do let me say I am not really into > computers and do not know how to do all that stuff. Call your local HS, a Scout troop, or your teen-age grand child. Tell them you "need to install a desktop shortcut to program that runs under the Command Prompt. Can they do that for you?" If so, a loaded extra-large Pizza and a 6-pack of cola will be provided during the process. Usually works around here. (g) Cheryl

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:15:42 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir > <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > >> Hugh, I guess I don't understand the part about RM picking it up >> twice. Do you mean if it's in quotes in Legacy, then GEDCOMed into RM, >> it picks the quoted name twice? If that's the case, then I think what is >> happening is that RM Thinks the quotes mean it's a nickname, which RM >> puts in quotes and includes when presenting the name. > > Thanks, Charlie, you nailed it. > >> If you don't use nicknames, then it might be a fairly simple task to just remove all >> the nicknames after importing the GEDCOM into RM. After saying that, >> I'll admit I don't know how to do that (other then doing it on the >> GEDCOM), but ther's a guy that posts often to the RM mail list that >> has written lots of SQL scripts to operate on the Rm database, and I'm >> sure he could give some suggestions. > > I do use a few nicknames. I have posted both problems to the RM user > group. Some comments, but no cures were posted to the first problem. I > didn't even get a response to the double name post. > > I "use" programs - I don't know how to "maneuver" the guts. That's the > problem with growing up before computers. > > Bruce and I used to communicate a lot back in the old days when we > were insulting the Banner Blue guy and he incorporated several > features I requested. But I don't think he knows me any more. He > outgrew me quickly. > > I like one thing in Legacy more than RM - the Family Screen. It > presents more info and I think the navigation is much easier. It's an > "old dog, new tricks" thing. > > Until a few years ago I made an effort to try every available > genealogy program. After trying so many RM was my "first love" - I > hate to give it up. > > I just tried PAF and it navigates the Family screen like RM - Bye, > Bye. I'd like to say it is a good starter program but Cheryl would > kick me where I bend in the middle. Nahhh. Different folks tolerate different things. RM's screen confuses me and Legacy over-does PAF's fascination with the little x in the corner, but at least they let me enter 21st century dates. That's why there are so many different programs. (g) C

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:33:37 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >I use both. I use RootsMagic and Legacy the same way - or did. I found two problems with transferring from one to the other. 1. Both allow sourcing of names. But RM sources the name in a manner that will not transfer back to Legacy as a name source. Instead it transfers back by gedcom as "unassigned". The name is still sourced in Legacy but the source is in the wrong place. 2. Because I am known by my middle name I enclose my middle name in quotes - and for everyone else who was known by the middle name. That used to be very common years ago. It works in Legacy. RM picks it up twice as... Billy "Bob" "Bob" Doe. I don't see a workaround for either. After all these years I guess I will have to give up on RM. I tried PAF years ago and gave up on it quickly. Maybe I'll give it another go as a second program to Legacy if gedcoms will transfer precisely. Hugh

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 12:47:07 GMT, myths@ic24.net (cecilia) wrote: >On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:22:52 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh >Sullivan) wrote: > >>[...] My grandson was just over to >>look at my non-boot desktop. He uses >>Open Office and recommends it. He >>is synced with any computer. >>[...] > >I ran Open Office 3.2 on the WinXP machine for the first 3 years I had >it and then went back to MS Office because > >(a) I bought a baby laptop that included the possibility of a >3-licence MS Office 2007 at a significant reduction; this would not >have been enough to justify the expenditure except that > >(b) I had had irritation, a few months earlier, setting up index >markers with OO Writer in the OCR'd text of my great-uncle's book >about his mother's ancestors - with MS Word, I could copy and paste >the markers, with OO Writer, I had to do each one separately > >(c) I was constructing (with a tight deadline) a chart of 6 >generations of family, ancestors, most siblings and many of the >cousins, all to fit on 4 A4 slides that I then joined as a rectangle >and reduced to just readable A3 and enlarged to a displayable version >between A1 and A0 (the largest clip-frame I could find in the UK at >the time); I was finding that with OO Impress I could not find how >to position text boxes as closely together as I had years earlier been >able to with Powerpoint 95 - and it was worth adding the learning >curve of the changes between Powerpoint 95 and Powerpoint 2007 to my >tasks for the next fortnight in order to reduce the gaps. Thanks for the comments and explaining your sophisticated use of the software. In an unexpected sort of way it helps - the choice of MS or open software often depends on the planned use. Hugh

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:24:18 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >Thanks for the comments and explaining your sophisticated use of the >software. > >In an unexpected sort of way it helps - the choice of MS or open >software often depends on the planned use. One thing to keep in mind is that they are working differently. I use LO on a daily basis to update my database. But, there are some operations not easy to do with LO while easy with Excel. One of them is what I call pivoting data. In my main database, I have links to parents. If I want to compare them, I open my parents' files and the file with data I want to compare, and copy data using this macro : =iNDEX('[mar-1621-1765.xls]mar'!$H:$H;EQUIV(AH1;'[mar-1621-1765.xls]mar'!$D:$D;0);1) In cell AH1 of my file, there is the parent's number for data located in column D of file mar-1621-1765.xls and then I import the column H in this example. Then, I mark the imported cells and copy them to the same place the paste special. I can't do these 2 operations on LO or OOO. Instead, I have to copy to my file the columns I want to use (i.e. same file, not from another file), then I have to select a part of the column, not the whole column. I have to create a new column to paste special. So, I can do it with LO but it is much faster with MS. However, since I use LO almost all the time, I get used to LO. For example, LO will tell me if I cut and paste to a cell with content while Excel won't. But Excel will advise if I drag a cell to another with content and LO won't. To do cut and paste, with Excel you mark, cut, go to target, and paste. But in the meanwhile you can't edit another cell (you'll lose the cut area which is not erased. With LO, you mark and cut (this erases the marked data). Then you have to make some room to receive the cut area, i.e. if you cut 100 lines, you have to insert 100 lines before pasting the new lines. However, if while doing this operation you decide to change a cell, you can do it (the cut area is not lost). LO and Excel are 2 different softwares, working differently. MS, in some idiot action, changed completely the menus of Excel making it a nightmare to work with Excel and almost any other softwares (except Chrome which has no menus). LO is more consistent with the 20 last years of menu-operated softwares. Denis -- Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG) Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780

singhals wrote: > > Couldn't say. It grew and grew with each of 5 images I added, none > particularly large by my standards. I booted the experiment after the > 5th image. At which time, it was taking about 20 minutes to just OPEN > the thing. That makes me wonder how they're storing the images if the increment is way above image size. It also makes me wonder just how much structure they try to create in memory at start up - the full thing, pictures & all? As far as can see they're using a straightforward database engine which should just allow them to bring in data as they need it. > Color me, peeved? > Indeed. I think you're entitled ;) -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:22:52 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote: >[...] My grandson was just over to >look at my non-boot desktop. He uses >Open Office and recommends it. He >is synced with any computer. >[...] I ran Open Office 3.2 on the WinXP machine for the first 3 years I had it and then went back to MS Office because (a) I bought a baby laptop that included the possibility of a 3-licence MS Office 2007 at a significant reduction; this would not have been enough to justify the expenditure except that (b) I had had irritation, a few months earlier, setting up index markers with OO Writer in the OCR'd text of my great-uncle's book about his mother's ancestors - with MS Word, I could copy and paste the markers, with OO Writer, I had to do each one separately (c) I was constructing (with a tight deadline) a chart of 6 generations of family, ancestors, most siblings and many of the cousins, all to fit on 4 A4 slides that I then joined as a rectangle and reduced to just readable A3 and enlarged to a displayable version between A1 and A0 (the largest clip-frame I could find in the UK at the time); I was finding that with OO Impress I could not find how to position text boxes as closely together as I had years earlier been able to with Powerpoint 95 - and it was worth adding the learning curve of the changes between Powerpoint 95 and Powerpoint 2007 to my tasks for the next fortnight in order to reduce the gaps.

On 13 Feb 2013 in soc.genealogy.computing, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > I thank both of you for the responses. My grandson was just over to > look at my non-boot desktop. He uses Open Office and recommends it. He > is synced with any computer. > > Excel might be a bit sticky if one gets very sophisticated with it > > I think CNet recommends Libre. LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org both started from the same codebase. From what I can tell, LibreOffice is being more actively developed than OOo. -- Joe Makowiec http://makowiec.org/ Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:30:32 -0500, kraut / larry stark <kraut3852@yahoo.com> wrote: >Suggestions for a good freeware genealogy program that is not too >complicated. I should have mentioned that I am using Windows XP and Family Tree Maker which I started using when the DOS version was out which I would still use if I could. I wish I would have kept my old DOS box!! I would use it with the old DOS program!! I do not need all this graphics crap and fancy backgrounds and stuff and being able to save pics with it. I want something that keeps track of names, dates, relatiionships, charts, ETC in a genealogy porgram (before someone tells me I can use Excel or something). For me Family Tree Maker has way more junk then I will ever use plus the screen is so busy if you know what I mean. It takes me forever to find where I want to go in it!!! Usually someone brings up these DOS things that can be used in windows to run DOS programs but before they do let me say I am not really into computers and do not know how to do all that stuff. Thanks so very much.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:26:08 -0500, kraut / larry stark <kraut3852@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 21:30:32 -0500, kraut / larry stark ><kraut3852@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Suggestions for a good freeware genealogy program that is not too >>complicated. > >I should have mentioned that I am using Windows XP and Family Tree >Maker which I started using when the DOS version was out which I would >still use if I could. I wish I would have kept my old DOS box!! I >would use it with the old DOS program!! I do not need all this >graphics crap and fancy backgrounds and stuff and being able to save >pics with it. I want something that keeps track of names, dates, >relatiionships, charts, ETC in a genealogy porgram (before someone >tells me I can use Excel or something). For me Family Tree Maker has >way more junk then I will ever use plus the screen is so busy if you >know what I mean. It takes me forever to find where I want to go in >it!!! > >Usually someone brings up these DOS things that can be used in windows >to run DOS programs but before they do let me say I am not really into >computers and do not know how to do all that stuff. > >Thanks so very much. Although I don't use it, I think PAF would be your best choice. As others have mentioned, you don't need to use all the "features". That's true of any program, but based on what you've said, I think PAF should fit well.