> 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> Try Legacy Family Tree from Millenia. It runs on Vista and has a free standard version and a paid Deluxe version for $29.95 (download only) or Legacy 7.0 Deluxe (with User's Guide and CD) for $39.95. Includes: 1. Legacy 7.0 Deluxe software on CD and via download. 2. Legacy Charting Deluxe software (installed when Legacy 7.0 is installed). 3. Official 336-page printed user's guide. 4. Legacy for Beginners training video (on installation CD). Free is worth a try and it works with Vista. I think you will be pleased with it. -- Gene Y. "Gene Y." <n2kvs@cfl.rr.com>

> 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> l have Vista and you can download a fix for the #16 2006. No problems so far.

> John Nichols wrote: > > > > Did someone with authority change the meaning of "circa" while my > > > back was turned? I always thought it meant "sometime around then" > > > and if so, then "sometime around 1967" can easily be "sometime > > > around 1968" or "sometime around 1966" -- at least until a real firm > > > fact can be found, at which point it becomes "before 31 Jun 1967" or > > > "after 15 Dec 1966" ... and even then, 1967 IS after 1966! > > > > > > Even for a dedicated nit-picker, this seems too small to fret over. > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > > > Well, ca capitalized would be California, or calcium, but this of > > course doesn't apply to your nit. <g> > > Or Carcinoma or Canada or Computer Associates or Cardiology > Association ... > > > > Seriously, though, what prompted the nit, i.e. where did you see > > it? > > In a book, I published a date, which I had extrapolated, as "ca > date1"; I have recently received an irate complaint that that date > is seriously incorrect and that it should have been "ca date1 + 1" > year. > > That's the sort of discrepancy I thought "ca" was intended to cover. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> It does, and whoever the complainer was, obviously doesn't know what they were talking about.

> 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. > > Thanks for all help. > > Kberry <kdberr1@aol.com> I'm sure you will get both favorable and unfavorable responses. My favorite version of FTM is Legacy or RootsMagic or The Master Genealogist. And I hope you can swith Vista to XP or the new Version 7 when available. Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> > <snip> > > > > It could also be the plural of circus if you don't ask for a source. > > > > Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > Err, no, I don't think so. Circus would be the masculine singular, > which would become circi; circa would be the feminine singular, > plural circae (alumnus-alumni,alumna-alumnae). C'mon, Hugh, the > Navy taught you better than _that_! > > Swelterin' Ol' Bob > Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net> I thought I might be able to get away with it. I am playing to too tough a crowd. Hugh

> <snip> > > It could also be the plural of circus if you don't ask for a source. > > Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) Err, no, I don't think so. Circus would be the masculine singular, which would become circi; circa would be the feminine singular, plural circae (alumnus-alumni,alumna-alumnae). C'mon, Hugh, the Navy taught you better than _that_! Swelterin' 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>

HI: 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. Thanks for all help. Kberry kdberr1@aol.com

John Nichols wrote: > > Did someone with authority change the meaning of "circa" while my > > back was turned? I always thought it meant "sometime around then" > > and if so, then "sometime around 1967" can easily be "sometime > > around 1968" or "sometime around 1966" -- at least until a real firm > > fact can be found, at which point it becomes "before 31 Jun 1967" or > > "after 15 Dec 1966" ... and even then, 1967 IS after 1966! > > > > Even for a dedicated nit-picker, this seems too small to fret over. > > > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> > > Well, ca capitalized would be California, or calcium, but this of > course doesn't apply to your nit. <g> Or Carcinoma or Canada or Computer Associates or Cardiology Association ... > Seriously, though, what prompted the nit, i.e. where did you see > it? In a book, I published a date, which I had extrapolated, as "ca date1"; I have recently received an irate complaint that that date is seriously incorrect and that it should have been "ca date1 + 1" year. That's the sort of discrepancy I thought "ca" was intended to cover. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> The simplest way to explain 1st, 2nd, 3rd cousins vs. 1st cousins > twice removed, three times removed, etc. is to look back to the > common ancestor you and your cousins share and then count the number > of number of generations from that common ancestor down to you and > your cousin. If the number of generations is the SAME for each of > you then you are 1st, 2nd cousins, etc. -- but if the number of > generations differs then you are "removed" by the number of > generations that differ. > > JYoung6180@aol.com Joan, I am not the one who asked the question but I am one who benefitted from your answer. Thanks. Barbara Mac Barbara McLeod <1brown1blue@gmail.com>

> Did someone with authority change the meaning of "circa" while my > back was turned? I always thought it meant "sometime around then" > and if so, then "sometime around 1967" can easily be "sometime > around 1968" or "sometime around 1966" -- at least until a real firm > fact can be found, at which point it becomes "before 31 Jun 1967" or > "after 15 Dec 1966" ... and even then, 1967 IS after 1966! > > Even for a dedicated nit-picker, this seems too small to fret over. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Well, ca capitalized would be California, or calcium, but this of course doesn't apply to your nit. <g> Seriously, though, what prompted the nit, i.e. where did you see it?

> Did someone with authority change the meaning of "circa" while my > back was turned? I always thought it meant "sometime around then" > and if so, then "sometime around 1967" can easily be "sometime > around 1968" or "sometime around 1966" -- at least until a real firm > fact can be found, at which point it becomes "before 31 Jun 1967" or > "after 15 Dec 1966" ... and even then, 1967 IS after 1966! > > Even for a dedicated nit-picker, this seems too small to fret over. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> If a female wants to be 39, she places "circa" before the year of choice. It could also be the plural of circus if you don't ask for a source. Hugh Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)

> Did someone with authority change the meaning of "circa" while my > back was turned? I always thought it meant "sometime around then" > and if so, then "sometime around 1967" can easily be "sometime > around 1968" or "sometime around 1966" -- at least until a real firm > fact can be found, at which point it becomes "before 31 Jun 1967" or > "after 15 Dec 1966" ... and even then, 1967 IS after 1966! > > Even for a dedicated nit-picker, this seems too small to fret over. > > Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> [Latin circ, from circum, around (probably on the model of adverbs like intr, within), from circus, circle; see circle.] The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Each dictionary varies it a little but all agree it is from the Latin circus meaning circle. So not literally 'sometime around then' but can most certainly be interpreted that way. MickG Mick <mickg01@verizon.net>

Did someone with authority change the meaning of "circa" while my back was turned? I always thought it meant "sometime around then" and if so, then "sometime around 1967" can easily be "sometime around 1968" or "sometime around 1966" -- at least until a real firm fact can be found, at which point it becomes "before 31 Jun 1967" or "after 15 Dec 1966" ... and even then, 1967 IS after 1966! Even for a dedicated nit-picker, this seems too small to fret over. Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> I'm a little confused about cousins - once removed, twice removed. > What does that mean? > > I have found cousins that are related down the line to my gggf. =A0Are > they cousins or are they removed cousins? > > emmydbd <emmy...@yahoo.com> Thanks for all the info - I understand now. Emmy

> > > > "Lisa Lepore" <llepore@comcast.net> > > > > > > You may be right. > > > > > > At which point I say again, in my opinion each person should backup > > > and have gedcom of every data base. It's only overkill when you > > > don't make errors. > > > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > > > Using a GEDCOM file as a backup should only be used as a last > > resort backup. Anything much more than BMD information will be lost > > when imported back into the genealogy program. > > > > The file or files in a genealogy program should be backed up to and/ > > or copied to a separate medium like a CD. > > > > bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net> > > True, Bob - but at least you would have the basic bones of the data > which could be opened by any gen. program. As I understand the > problem, this person has an FTM backup which she can't open anywhere > at the moment. > > This brings up another question though. I seem to remember reading > that TMG or Legacy could open FTM and other gen. program file > formats? If she can't open a version of FTM on her computer, maybe > another program can be used to resolve the problem. > > I don't know if you can comment on this, but maybe someone else will > know. > > Lisa <llepore@comcast.net> TMG can open a copy of an .ftm file, but I don't /think/ it can open a copy of the backed-up version of that file. Bob'll be along soon to correct me. (g) Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

> > > "Lisa Lepore" <llepore@comcast.net> > > > > You may be right. > > > > At which point I say again, in my opinion each person should backup > > and have gedcom of every data base. It's only overkill when you > > don't make errors. > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > Using a GEDCOM file as a backup should only be used as a last > resort backup. Anything much more than BMD information will be lost > when imported back into the genealogy program. > > The file or files in a genealogy program should be backed up to and/ > or copied to a separate medium like a CD. > > bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net> True, Bob - but at least you would have the basic bones of the data which could be opened by any gen. program. As I understand the problem, this person has an FTM backup which she can't open anywhere at the moment. This brings up another question though. I seem to remember reading that TMG or Legacy could open FTM and other gen. program file formats? If she can't open a version of FTM on her computer, maybe another program can be used to resolve the problem. I don't know if you can comment on this, but maybe someone else will know. Lisa llepore@comcast.net

> I'm a little confused about cousins - once removed, twice removed. > What does that mean? > > I have found cousins that are related down the line to my gggf. Are > they cousins or are they removed cousins? > > emmydbd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin -- Mike Williams Gentleman of Leisure Mike Williams <nospam@econym.demon.co.uk>

> > "Lisa Lepore" <llepore@comcast.net> > > You may be right. > > At which point I say again, in my opinion each person should backup > and have gedcom of every data base. It's only overkill when you > don't make errors. > > J. Hugh Sullivan Using a GEDCOM file as a backup should only be used as a last resort backup. Anything much more than BMD information will be lost when imported back into the genealogy program. The file or files in a genealogy program should be backed up to and/ or copied to a separate medium like a CD. bob gillis bob gillis <robertgillis@verizon.net>

> I'm a little confused about cousins - once removed, twice removed. > What does that mean? Cousins are two people who have two ancestors in common. (If there's only one ancestor in common, that's called a "half cousin"). If the ancestors in common are their parents, the relationship is more commonly known as "siblings", "brothers", "sisters", or "brother and sister". Nth cousins are two people who have two ancestors in common N+1 generations back. (e.g. two people who have two grandparents in common are first cousins. Two people who have two great- grandparents in common are second cousins). 0th cousins are more commonly known as brothers/sisters. You may debate whether or not "0th cousins" really are cousins or just siblings. > I have found cousins that are related down the line to my gggf. Are > they cousins or are they removed cousins? Removed cousins are cousins. "removed" indicates that they are of different generations. Non-"removed" cousins are of the same generation. The child of your second cousin is your second cousin once removed. His child is your second cousin, twice removed. gordonb.d4xm9@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)

> I'm a little confused about cousins - once removed, twice removed. > What does that mean? > > I have found cousins that are related down the line to my gggf. Are > they cousins or are they removed cousins? > > Thanks for the help, > Emmy emmydbd <emmydbd@yahoo.com> There are relationship calculators and charts online that can help you compute a relationship. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genepool/cousins.htm http://www.searchforancestors.com/utility/cousincalculator.html Greatly simplified, removed is the number of generations back to a common ancestor. news@jecarter.us