"singhals" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected] <snip> > As a rule of thumb (and yes, some thumbs are shorter than others), if the > box/ad doesn't specifically SAY it does x, y, or z, better assume it > doesn't do it. (Possible exceptions would include the box not specifying > you can SAVE or SAVE_As, but if it doesn't SAY you can import/export via > GEDCOM, you can't; if it doesn't SAY you can color-code the data, you > can't but even if it does say so, you may not be able to color-code the > data you want color-coded). > > I've used PAF, Legacy, Roots/UFT, FTM, TFE, RM/FO, and others. Each > had/has a feature the others lack. The "legacy" software from DOS-days I > keep functional on an old computer; some of the newer ones I use at my > FHC. > > If I were limited to /just/ one, it would be PAF because I'm used to it > and it does a magnificent job of storing my factual data. I'll have to > move to something else one day, because LDS is not developing it further > and one day in the not-far-distant future it will quit running on new > computers. At that time, I'll probably go to Ancestral Quest as it's what > PAF3 et seq are based on. > > FWIW. Opinions of others will vary wildly. (g) > > Cheryl Thankyou Cheryl - I appreciate your response. You are right about the feature spread among various packages, I also find that the (G)UI varies from enabling to restrictive, or perhaps enabling to frustrating! Dave --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to [email protected] ---
Dave C wrote: > > "singhals"<[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] > > <snip> > >> As a rule of thumb (and yes, some thumbs are shorter than others), if the >> box/ad doesn't specifically SAY it does x, y, or z, better assume it >> doesn't do it. (Possible exceptions would include the box not specifying >> you can SAVE or SAVE_As, but if it doesn't SAY you can import/export via >> GEDCOM, you can't; if it doesn't SAY you can color-code the data, you >> can't but even if it does say so, you may not be able to color-code the >> data you want color-coded). >> >> I've used PAF, Legacy, Roots/UFT, FTM, TFE, RM/FO, and others. Each >> had/has a feature the others lack. The "legacy" software from DOS-days I >> keep functional on an old computer; some of the newer ones I use at my >> FHC. >> >> If I were limited to /just/ one, it would be PAF because I'm used to it >> and it does a magnificent job of storing my factual data. I'll have to >> move to something else one day, because LDS is not developing it further >> and one day in the not-far-distant future it will quit running on new >> computers. At that time, I'll probably go to Ancestral Quest as it's what >> PAF3 et seq are based on. >> >> FWIW. Opinions of others will vary wildly. (g) >> >> Cheryl > > Thankyou Cheryl - I appreciate your response. You are right about the > feature spread among various packages, I also find that the (G)UI varies > from enabling to restrictive, or perhaps enabling to frustrating! (G) These days, I tend not to analyze WHY a program doesn't do what I want; it either does or doesn't; if it doesn't, I use a different program to do that. My crusader gene timed-out about in the Y2K non-crisis. (g) I find that it is a serendipitous side-effect of my minimalist approach to the use of nooks and crannies in any program is the ease with which I can bounce from program to program. Whatever floats your boat, as they say. I once found two reports really useful in FTM/W -- the age-at-death report and the print-everybody-whether-they're-related-or-not report. Now, just about every genie program does the first, and FTW quit doing the second. No one has yet mentioned The Master Genealogist. Stereotypically, anyone who likes FTM probably isn't going to go for TMG, but a lot of people really really like TMG, and it does permit/encourage thinking of events and roles within the event. You might check out their demo on the Wholly Genes website. Cheryl