> I'm not going to go further with this discussion by branching into > why I'm unhappy with genealogy programs that don't include slave > ancestry. I would like to know what specific items in software do you need for slave genealogy. I am currently working on a slave family. "L.L. Scott" <llscott2000@bellsouth.net>

> I will repeat: I'm not interested in changing my software, I just > want to find out which version of Family Tree Maker that listmembers > are happy with that's compatible with Vista. > > <Kdberr1@aol.com> I'm using FTM 2005 with Vista - and no problems. If I remember rightly, I had to download a patch from the FTM site when I did the installations. I've never upgraded because I like the "everyone in the database" tree which I'm told they've removed. Your best bet is probably to take a look at the specs of the FTM website - it should tell you what's compatible - and supply a patch if you need one. Lesley Robertson "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl>

> I appreciate all the suggestions on this thread, but I'm happy with > Family Tree Maker. > > I will repeat: I'm not interested in changing my software, I just > want to find out which version of Family Tree Maker that listmembers > are happy with that's compatible with Vista. > > As it turns out, many like totally different genealogy software > programs and I keep getting suggestions that I change altogether. > I'm not going to do that. > > I'm not going to go further with this discussion by branching into > why I'm unhappy with genealogy programs that don't include slave > ancestry. > > I believe my original question has been fully answered several times > over and here's the answers in a nutshell: "Change to my favorite > software, you'll love it." > > Unfortunately, I have yet to get specifics on the later FTM > versions, so it seems that on this listserve at least, there are no > fans of the software. Oh well. > > Thanks again to all who emailed me. > > Kberry <Kdberr1@aol.com> I have FTM 2009 and am happy with it. I've had FTM for over 9 yrs. so went thru all of the changes. I just upgraded to 2010, but haven't received it yet. I have tried others, but I think FTM have made some significant progress in updating their software and the bugs have been worked out in 2009. It was a frustrating experience tough. Anxious to see what 2010 brings, certainly should work with Vista alright. I also just bought a Macbook Pro laptop and am using iFamily software, am happy with it also, but want to keep up with FTM on my Windows XP on the Mac, so I can help my granddaughter on her PC. Gloria Gloria Farrell <glofarrell@aol.com>

> > Legacy's screens are in my opinion closer to FTM 2006 and less of > > a learning curve to get used to. And, as others have said, you can > > download a (limited functionality) version for free. > > Thanks to everyone for their advice and suggestions. > > BTW, I'm not interested in totally changing my genealogy software. > Unless someone knows of software that allows me to incorporate my > slave ancestry without resorting to an Excel spreadsheet, I'll stick > to Family Tree Maker. I'm very happy with it and just wanted to > find out about the newer versions that are compatible with Vista & > my new computer before I bought it again. > > Incidentally, while cleaning up I found a 2007 issue of Family Tree > Magazine that panned FTM 16 and advised waiting for 2008. Since > there's a 2009 version out I'll probably buy that. > > Kberry <Kdberr1@aol.com> Have you considered taking a look at Rootsmagic 4?

HI: I appreciate all the suggestions on this thread, but I'm happy with Family Tree Maker. I will repeat: I'm not interested in changing my software, I just want to find out which version of Family Tree Maker that listmembers are happy with that's compatible with Vista. As it turns out, many like totally different genealogy software programs and I keep getting suggestions that I change altogether. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to go further with this discussion by branching into why I'm unhappy with genealogy programs that don't include slave ancestry. I believe my original question has been fully answered several times over and here's the answers in a nutshell: "Change to my favorite software, you'll love it." Unfortunately, I have yet to get specifics on the later FTM versions, so it seems that on this listserve at least, there are no fans of the software. Oh well. Thanks again to all who emailed me. Kberry Kdberr1@aol.com

> > Legacy's screens are in my opinion closer to FTM 2006 and less of > > a learning curve to get used to. And, as others have said, you can > > download a (limited functionality) version for free. > > Thanks to everyone for their advice and suggestions. > > BTW, I'm not interested in totally changing my genealogy software. > Unless someone knows of software that allows me to incorporate my > slave ancestry without resorting to an Excel spreadsheet, I'll stick > to Family Tree Maker. I'm very happy with it and just wanted to > find out about the newer versions that are compatible with Vista & > my new computer before I bought it again. > > Incidentally, while cleaning up I found a 2007 issue of Family Tree > Magazine that panned FTM 16 and advised waiting for 2008. Since > there's a 2009 version out I'll probably buy that. > > Kberry <Kdberr1@aol.com> If you don't wish to change software vendors, FTM 2009 will certainly work with Vista. However, given that FTM 2009 is a complete re-write, the user interface is significantly altered and it will probably feel as different (from earlier versions of FTM) to you as any other program from another vendor. One thing I forgot to mention (and it may be a very important reason to stay with FTM) is that Legacy can only directly import files from PAF and Ancestral Quest. Any other program, you must create a GEDCOM in the source program and then import into Legacy. This would lose all attachments such as pictures and other scanned documents. Therefore, if you have lots of attachments (I think FTM calls them the scrapbbok), the only way to keep them without going through a whole lot of work is to stay with FTM. Perhaps one of the other programs can import directly from Family Tree Maker retaining attachments, but I am only familiar with Legacy. Paul "Paul Gray" <graypaul@telus.net>

Kdberr1@aol.com wrote: > BTW, I'm not interested in totally changing my genealogy software. > Unless someone knows of software that allows me to incorporate my > slave ancestry without resorting to an Excel spreadsheet, I do not understand that statement. Explain more about your data, format etc. What is so different about your slave ancestry? What Genealogy programs won't accept your data? I am sure TMG will handle any data that you have. And probably Legacy and Rootsmagic also (although I have no experience with RM). bob gillis bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

> Unless someone knows of software that allows me to incorporate my > slave ancestry without resorting to an Excel spreadsheet, I'll stick > to Family Tree Maker. What are the aspects of your slave ancestry which make Family Tree Maker particularly suited to it? You might want to look at The Master Genealogist (http://www.whollygenes.com/), which will import your FTM database directly, and which is one of the more flexible and customizable family tree database managers. -- Joe Makowiec http://makowiec.org/ Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/ Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid>

> Legacy's screens are in my opinion closer to FTM 2006 and less of > a learning curve to get used to. And, as others have said, you can > download a (limited functionality) version for free. HI: Thanks to everyone for their advice and suggestions. BTW, I'm not interested in totally changing my genealogy software. Unless someone knows of software that allows me to incorporate my slave ancestry without resorting to an Excel spreadsheet, I'll stick to Family Tree Maker. I'm very happy with it and just wanted to find out about the newer versions that are compatible with Vista & my new computer before I bought it again. Incidentally, while cleaning up I found a 2007 issue of Family Tree Magazine that panned FTM 16 and advised waiting for 2008. Since there's a 2009 version out I'll probably buy that. Kberry Kdberr1@aol.com

"Mick" <mickg01@verizon.net> wrote: > However despite the other person's possible considerable effort > gathering that information, most if not all of it is probably > information that's available in the public domain, and as many law > suits about 'unauthorized' biographies have shown, publishing such > information is indeed not illegal. Therefore these threats are > simply bluster and unenforceable. I think that the biggest danger is possibly that if someone gets a reputation for publishing other people's reseaarch without their permission, other researchers will be much less enthusiastic about sharing more info with them. If you wouldn't like someone doing it to you, don't do it to other people. Lesley Robertson "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl>

> I just bought a new computer with the Vista operating system. I > have an old version of Family Tree Maker that doesn't support Vista. > I plan to download and purchase the compatible software and would > like to know what people think of the Family Tree Maker 16 software. > I believe I read in Family Tree Magazine that many genealogy experts > panned FTM 2008 -- am I right? > > If you have FTM16, let me know what you think of it. I like the > version I have but I think it's from, I don't know, 2005 or > something. But since I have to make that move anyway, I don't want > to buy the software no one likes. > > Kberry <kdberr1@aol.com> I had FTM 2006 (ver 16) and it 'sort of' worked with Vista. The important distinction is whether you have Vista 32 bit or 64 bit (generally faster processors and/or more RAM require 64 bit). With 64 bit (which I have), everything worked except PDF creation although there are some workarounds with third party PDF programs that are not too bad, but not as full featured as native FTM. With 32 bit, which my cousin uses, no problems with Vista and FTM2006 (after downloading the Vista patch, which is a PDF generator that works with Vista 32 bit, but not 64 bit). I have since changed to Legacy 7.0, and I love it! It's much more full featured than FTM 2006. To be fair, FTM 2009 (which I have also used) also has many of the same features as Legacy 7.0. FTM has taken a beating in the reputation department for bugs in FTM 2008, many of which are probably fixed in 2009. (when I used 2009 for a short while, I didn't see any glaring problems). I like Legacy's screen designs better. In FTM 2008/2009, they have tried to cram too much on the screen in my opinion. On the main "people tab" there is a family view and pedgree view on top of each other in the centre, an 'individual index' on the left, and an 'indivdual details' on the right. Makes for small text, hard to read. Legacy's screen let's you show one of those views at a time on the screen, with easy access to the other views with tabs at the top of the screen. Legacy's screens are in my opinion closer to FTM 2006 and less of a learning curve to get used to. And, as others have said, you can download a (limited functionality) version for free. I did that, took a test drive, and bought Deluxe. Also, don't overlook the training videos on Legacy's site, they arte very well done and informative. Paul "Paul Gray" <graypaul@telus.net>

> > "I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not > > related to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are > > setting yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the > > Internet without asking permission." > > > > I received the above email from the person who gave me the > > information. The information is privatized but the person is listed > > as the source. I don't understand her concern. > > > > It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an > > old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. > > > > I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. > > Ideas? Comments? > > > > patricia ricci > > I'm a little puzzled as to why you would be posting information > about people to whom you are not related on Ancestry. In fact I'm > puzzled why anyone would post anything on Ancestry who are simply > making an unreasonable profit out of the hard work of others. > However despite the other person's possible considerable effort > gathering that information, most if not all of it is probably > information that's available in the public domain, and as many law > suits about 'unauthorized' biographies have shown, publishing such > information is indeed not illegal. Therefore these threats are > simply bluster and unenforceable. > > Mick <mickg01@verizon.net> I have a database full of information on the Italians who settled in Cumberland many of which are not "related" to me but the info is useful. Many people have contacted me and I have been able to send them directly more info about their families than they had dared to dream. The info is privatized on Ancestry.com The person who is asking me to remove it gave it to me many years ago as I had established a connection to her family. I told her that 4200+ people in the database are connected to her ancestors but she is more aggrieved because someone did stel her info and republish it for profit. Her name does not appear except as the source of the information she gave to me. Interestingly someone has usurped my entire file on Ancestry but it is a private file. I will contact that person and see if she is connected. -- Pat Ricci Winter: 122 Demont Ave E #356 Little Canada MN 55117 651/766/8482 Summer: Comstock WI 54826 715/822/3256 PIE #203 ADLT #214 Researching Italians from Cumberland Wisconsin patricia ricci <plr@infionline.net>

> "I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not > related to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are > setting yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the > Internet without asking permission." > > I received the above email from the person who gave me the > information. The information is privatized but the person is listed > as the source. I don't understand her concern. > > It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an > old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. > > I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. > Ideas? Comments? > > patricia ricci <plr@infionline.net> I think there are a couple of things that need to be discussed here: (1) Was the information you posted/published available from public sources and could you have obtained that information by your own researches? If so, then the complainer really has nothing to complain about. But the question arises, why would you want to publish information about people you're not related to? This is like the guy who replied to you the other day who claimed to have 430,000 names in his database - surely not everybody there is related and one is left wondering what, beyond name collecting, he's doing. One is left with the same question in your case. (2) If nothing else, common courtesy should tell you to inform the person contributing the information you'd like to publish it. If she objects, you should then work to overcome those objections, but defer publishing until you can. Certainly, there's no requirement you do anything of the sort, but it seems to me to be the polite thing to do. (3) Now you've created the problem, you need to solve it. Start the process with Ancestry, no matter how cumbersome, then go back to the complainer and explain what you've done and apologize. Again, no requirement that you do this, but I'd about guarantee you'll never again get "free" information from others if you don't. Bottom line: legally, you're in the clear, it seems to me (but I'm not a lawyer and don't want to be one). Ethically, you were wrong to publish without first discussing the matter with the complainer and need to do what you can to repair the damage to YOUR reputation. My US$0.02. Swell Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

> "I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not > related to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are > setting yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the > Internet without asking permission." > > I received the above email from the person who gave me the > information. The information is privatized but the person is listed > as the source. I don't understand her concern. > > It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an > old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. > > I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. > Ideas? Comments? > > patricia ricci I'm not a lawyer so this is not legal advice; if you want legal advice hire a lawyer. ISTM that the issues are not names as such and whether you asked permission but the possibility of database copyright (if you don't know what that is, do a search on it) and whether you were given clearance to publish. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk>

> "I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not > related to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are > setting yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the > Internet without asking permission." > > I received the above email from the person who gave me the > information. The information is privatized but the person is listed > as the source. I don't understand her concern. > > It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an > old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. > > I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. > Ideas? Comments? > > patricia ricci The only information that she can give permission for is her own, personally recognizable, information. She doesn't "own" any of the other information and therefor has no right to give or withhold permission to publish. And as for her personal information, if it is in the public domain she can not even stop that. I wouldn't worry about the legal ramifications of her e-mail. If all the people in the file are dead then she has no leg to stand on. -- Gene Y. "Gene Y." <n2kvs@cfl.rr.com>

> "I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not > related to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are > setting yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the > Internet without asking permission." > > I received the above email from the person who gave me the > information. The information is privatized but the person is listed > as the source. I don't understand her concern. > > It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an > old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. > > I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. > Ideas? Comments? > > patricia ricci I'm a little puzzled as to why you would be posting information about people to whom you are not related on Ancestry. In fact I'm puzzled why anyone would post anything on Ancestry who are simply making an unreasonable profit out of the hard work of others. However despite the other person's possible considerable effort gathering that information, most if not all of it is probably information that's available in the public domain, and as many law suits about 'unauthorized' biographies have shown, publishing such information is indeed not illegal. Therefore these threats are simply bluster and unenforceable. MickG Mick <mickg01@verizon.net>

> "I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not > related to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are > setting yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the > Internet without asking permission." > > I received the above email from the person who gave me the > information. The information is privatized but the person is listed > as the source. I don't understand her concern. > > It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an > old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. > > I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. > Ideas? Comments? > > patricia ricci <plr@infionline.net> Pat First I would have to say that I think this is a scam. You do not have to have permission to put names on the internet. BUT you have to be careful what personal information you put in. What source did you use? If you used a newspaper report of a birth - THAT IS PUBLIC INFORMATION not private. However if you publish the social security number of a living person THAT IS PRIVATE INFORMATION. Any information that the person has made public is fair game. Say if they submitted information for a engagement or marriage announcement, or run for an office. Once a person has placed the information before the public, they can't say "Oh wait a minute I don't want anyone to know that after all. You need to be able to show that the sources of the information is Public. Lets say you have a 1925 birth date for a person who says "my birth date is private" The 1930 Census is public information and any one can use it to see the person is age 4 11/12. Anyone born in California before 1995 information is public because the state of California published this information. Many cities in New England published births, deaths, and marriages at the end of each year. If the government has published the information it is PUBLIC and anyone can use it. Texas did this too I think. That being said, I never publish information about people born after the latest census unless they have died. Just saves the complaints. Julia Coldren-Walker FamRSearch@aol.com

> "I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not related > to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are setting > yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the Internet without > asking permission." > I received the above email from the person who gave me the information. > The information is privatized but the person is listed as the source. I > don't understand her concern. > It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an > old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. > > I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. > Ideas? Comments? > > Pat Ricci Hi Pat and all .... I guess I'll follow my lifelong tradition, and be a curmudgeon- contrarian. Bear with the genealogical geezer! ;-))) I have a hard time thinking of genealogical information as "mine". I always have. I got started in this hobby in 1957 in high school, and the folks who provided me with with my first taste of my ancestors and cousins who went before were all gone by the time I was in college. I remember how happy Great-Aunt Corrine, my grandmother Anna, and great-granduncle Joe were when that little kid really wanted to know. It was "their" information and they really appreciated that it would be passed on to family members yet to be born. But it was also "ours". They didn't own their ancestors, we all do. They are as much part of the history of the world we all live in as stories of World War heroism, photographs of places and people of long ago, and the histories of all our particular parts of the world ... with all their ideas, honors, failures, and warts. Not one of the 430,000 people in my publically available genealogy is mine and mine alone. That's the whole point! And that includes ME ... I'm somebody's grandson, son, father, grandfather, nephew, husband, and yes, even a cousin, maybe even somebody's crazy 7th cousin twice removed that recorded all this information, for whatever earthly reason! And you know, 100 years from now, I'll be a lot of people's long dead relative. ;-))) So I don't care about "privacy", right? Not so. I get as disturbed as anyone about the slimes that conduct identity theft. But what is the difference today? Dishonest people registered dead people to vote throughout the history of democracy ... and they just copied a name off a gravestone, out of an old preserved newspaper, or anywhere else they could find it. People have always pretended to be someone they were not. Neither genealogy or the Internet created this opportunity, or really even made it any easier! In fact, I'd even be so bold (or foolish, if you wish) to believe that the explosion of information, technology, and retrieval capability makes it more difficult, not easier, to steal identities successfully. It is a heck of a lot easier now than 100 years ago to find out the truth. I do have a longstanding bone to pick with organizations and websites that encourage people to create passwords and identity-proof questions that deal with things that many people will know about you from publically-available records. There are lots of obscure details about yourself that nobody will ever write down, even if at some time in the future we become famous (or infamous)! Us gray-hairs are in a strange situation here. We grew up with a fairly open society, and we discovered long after the fact that many people we trusted were cheating us blind. That made us paranoid, and we started being aware of the nasty folks around us. It didn't seem to be a good idea to be too trusting anymore, so we rolled ourselves up in our shells. The current economic situation hasn't helped either! On the other hand, take a close look at those grandkids of yours. If you've had much experience with the pre-teens, teens, and many of the 20-somethings in our society right now, a number of things stand out. One of them is that they are a heck of a lot more open in their feelings, beliefs, and ideas than we are, perhaps more than we've ever been . Many of them likely will, eventually, become as nervous as we are, but they will also have to recognise the changes in their own grandkids, and be better than we are, or at least a heck of a lot smarter! -- Paul J. Lareau Freedom for Imprisoned Books! Don't Chain them to a Dusty Bookshelf. Visit: http://www.bookcrossing.com and my bookshelf at: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/pjlareau - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [POST] 135 E. Viking Dr. #301, Little Canada MN 55117 USA [FAMILY WEB SITE] http://www.lareau.org/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Paul J. Lareau" <paul@lareau.org>

"I asked you to remove my family from ancestry.com. They are not related to you, you did not ask permission to include them. You are setting yourself up for a possible lawsuit putting names on the Internet without asking permission." I received the above email from the person who gave me the information. The information is privatized but the person is listed as the source. I don't understand her concern. It is not easy removing a file from Ancestry.com because it is an old file and has to be done by them which I have requested. I'm not sur she has a legal leg to stand on either. Ideas? Comments? -- Pat Ricci Winter: 122 Demont Ave E #356 Little Canada MN 55117 651/766/8482 Summer: Comstock WI 54826 715/822/3256 PIE #203 ADLT #214 Researching Italians from Cumberland Wisconsin patricia ricci <plr@infionline.net>

Our research note for August discusses the non-population schedules of the federal census and their use in providing context for writing family histories and exploring other research possibilities. The schedules themselves are available on microfilm through interlibrary loan from the Minnesota Historical Society. The note can be found at: http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/res_ntcn.html Other notes in our series for Minnesota researchers are at http://www.parkbooks.com/Html/research.html Mary Bakeman Park Genealogical Books Mary Bakeman <mbakeman@parkbooks.com>