I've been searching the IGI for missing ordinance dates on some of my family and have noticed an entry I don't understand. It is the entry "prior to1970" and is also sometimes written as <1970>. It seems to be used in lieu of the actual date. I guess my question is what happened in 1970 that was so important that it was granted an exception to the rules of entering dates? I searched carefully in the text book I used to learn genealogy from, but it was printed in the 50's and would be unlikely to have anything about the 1970's in it. Can anyone help? -- Byron O. Bousha bbousha@comcast.net (503)231-7190

What if she married later either to the father of the child or someone else.? Would this not be confusing? I have recently come across and ancestor of mine who was born illigitimate and where the mother refused to name the father. I later found evidence that she later married but don't know whether it was the child's father or not. What I have done is indicate in the child's notes that he was born out of wedlock and that the father is unknown. I don't know any other way to handle this but if I aquired info, say from someone else, that she never married, I probably wouldn't look too hard for a future husband. I'd assume that 'never' meant 'never ever'! I'd welcome any further guidance in this matter. Rollei (in Australia) Researching: LITTLE, Hibbard, Labies, Harmegnies, Gilbert, Bickford http://www.rolleilittle.com/ >From: "Dick Cazier" <dcazier@comcast.net> >To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation >Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:15:34 -0600 > >Richard, >I see your point. But, as Jerry pointed out, it's good to have some bold >notation on the Individual screen to remind you of the situation. Maybe a >better entry in the Married Name field would be "No marriage records >found." Or, "believed to have never married." >Dick Cazier >----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Rands" <rrands@cfmc.com> >To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 3:39 PM >Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > > >>Since I am a big proponent of using the Married Name field, I'd like to >>respond to this suggestion with some reservations. >>I have always been reluctant to enter any comment that suggests not >>married, unmarried, or never married. First of all the notion of marriage >>has evolved significantly over the centuries of recorded history, and the >>recording of marriages has vacillated back and forth between civil >>authorities, religious authorities, and families. My reluctance to making >>such a comment in the most visible fields is that the connotation of not >>married carries a lot of negative baggage, and that putting such a comment >>where it is readily seen seems so final. Such a comment will stop anyone >>from ever looking further for a spouse. What if a parent, angry that a >>daughter married someone unacceptable, entered that comment in a family >>bible? I can imagine a lot of similar circumstances that would lead to >>such a situation. Many times there is a common-law spouse that may not be >>recorded, but should have been. I have seen cases where a young person >>was married for a few weeks and ended up getting a divorce or annulment >>without ever telling anyone. As far as the rest of the family was >>concerned, that person never married. I have tried to convince myself >>that having a not-married comment is actually useful except buried in the >>notes. >> >>I recall one experience some years ago when I was searching through some >>British parish records. that covered a lengthy period of time. The >>parish priests were consistent about noting the BB in the record for >>bastard born. At one point I began to notice that there was an unusual >>number of children in the record that had been born before the parents >>were married, or too soon after the marriage. It was so unusual that I >>asked the professional genealogist on duty. I was told that there were >>times during plagues and other similar times when the infant survival rate >>was so low, that it became common for betrothed couples to bear a child >>before marriage to make certain it would survive. Sometimes they waited >>until it was clear that the child was alive and kicking in the womb before >>the official marriage. Others waited to see if the child was male before >>getting married. >> >>I always ask myself, "does this comment serve any real purpose?" If >>someone without a recorded spouse has children in the database, PAF >>automatically enters Unknown. I believe that is sufficient information >>for that circumstance. If there are no children listed, then I believe >>that leaving the spouse blank is appropriate with any comments about >>marriages being placed in the notes. If you have the names of both the >>father and the mother, but there is no officially recorded date, I believe >>blank here is appropriate as well. We just don't know the circumstances >>and leaving it blank serves to indicate that you don't know. Entering >>something that may be incorrect seems to judgmental and final. >> >>Just my thoughts >>Richard Rands >> >>At 01:24 PM 7/18/2005 -0700, Alishea Durham wrote: >>>My thoughts go back to a previous discussion on the >>>Married Name field. Some folks have suggested putting >>>the spouses full name in this field. I could see >>>putting in Unmarried for someone who never did. >>> >>> >>> >>>--- FHB39@cs.com wrote: >>> >>> > In the marriage box instead of the date I put >>> > unwed.. >>> > Since she had a child, in the spouse space I put >>> > unknown since the marriage >>> > information is unwed I'm hoping that anyone reading >>> > it will realize that the >>> > child's father is unknown. This child was born in >>> > Bavaria in 1863. His >>> > baptismal records in the church records state that >>> > he is the bastard son of >>> > Catharine. >>> > If there had not been any child I would have put >>> > none in the spouse box >>> > Fran >>> > >>> > >>> > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>> > Replying to Posts >>> > When quoting a post you're replying to, omit >>> > signatures and taglines that are appended to the >>> > post. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>>RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >>>Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >>>http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ >> >> >> >>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>RootsWeb >>http://www.rootsweb.com/ >> >> > > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives >http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ >

Besides a very close relative, who perhaps you personally knew, how can we ever know for sure that someone did not marry? I have a great aunt who was single for over 60 years, the family talk was that she never married. She used her maiden name. Long after her death it was discovered that in her youth she had run off and got married. As far as we can tell they never divorced, for some reason they went their separate ways. Had we listed NEVER MARRIED, we might not have found this out. I personally leave it blank, but as I always tell people genealogy is not regulated by the government we can list things anyway we want. Alan > From: JJasper381@aol.com > Date: 2005/07/18 Mon PM 05:51:58 EDT > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PAF-5] Unmarried citation > > I believe this subject has been bouncing back and forth between "Unmarried", > Not Married" and "Never Married". Putting the philosophical arguments > aside, I would like to say that I use the "Never Married" approach simply to keep > me from looking for a spouse for that individual at a later date. I need it > out in front of me, not buried in the notes somewhere so the Marriage Screen > is a good place for me to enter "Never Married". As far as Unmarried and Not > Married is concerned, it doesn't take long to see that a person was born out > of wedlock when you see his surname the same as the mother's and an Unknown > in the Father's position. > > Jerry > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Archives > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/PAF-5-USERS/ > >

In my own genealogy6, there is the case of a daughter who has a baby in a city about 40 miles away from where the rest of the family lives. The lady's name is listed as "Sadie Gray" instead of "Gregg." The baby is listed as "Baby Gray, Father Unknown." They died within a few days of each other. The baby was lsited as being interred in the city cemetery, while the mother is listed as being buried in the town where the family lives. Sure enough, I found "Sadie Gregg" buried with the rest of the family and the correct death date. Having discovered all of that, I have listed in her notes that I never found a marriage. When my husband and I were looking at Hungarian birth records for Budapest, we found so many illegimate babies. These were in Jewish records, and my husband was flabbergasted. I finally came to the conclusion that the girls got pregnant in their local village and they were sent to the big city to have their babies. What happened to the babies after that, I don't know. Pat

My understanding is different. The "pre 1970" does not always mean that the work was done. It is not used in the Online IGI. You must use the Online IGI to check what has been done. Pre-1970 will not be there. When the original IGI was being prepared to be used from the computer ( or maybe in the original microfiche) the records had to be transcribed, generally by hand entering each ordinance. The sources of the ordinance dates were old temple records, from the family group sheets submitted and used for the ordinances, and from other records used to submit the names to the temple. Sometimes the Baptism, endowment and sealing to parents would be in the same record. Sometimes only one or maybe two ordinances were found in a record. "pre-1970" was added as a marker that the real date needed to be found. It was not a guess that the work had been done. When the Online IGI was put together, the pre-1970's were omitted as well as the older "cleared" left over from submittals from years ago. The "cleared" that you see now is because the name was submitted since the new Family File Card program was started. This is not an official statement. I have seen several message over the last few years with this information. Mary Lou Harline Alan Jones at home <alanjones10@cox.net> wrote: Over the years the church tracked temple ordinance dates in different kinds of systems. In order to automatically migrate in some data from the system used prior to 1970 they were not able to get the program to copy the dates. They thought it was better to have them there with partial information than not there at all. Their goal is to eventually get all of it there and correct but it is taking manual effort to set it straight. Alan Jones Mission Viejo, Calif. -----Original Message----- From: bbousha@comcast.net [mailto:bbousha@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 5:17 PM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] ordinance dates? I've been searching the IGI for missing ordinance dates on some of my family and have noticed an entry I don't understand. It is the entry "prior to1970" and is also sometimes written as <1970>. It seems to be used in lieu of the actual date. I guess my question is what happened in 1970 that was so important that it was granted an exception to the rules of entering dates? I searched carefully in the text book I used to learn genealogy from, but it was printed in the 50's and would be unlikely to have anything about the 1970's in it. Can anyone help? -- Byron O. Bousha bbousha@comcast.net (503)231-7190 ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Search http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=PAF-5-USERS ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service http://www.familysearch.org/

I believe this subject has been bouncing back and forth between "Unmarried", Not Married" and "Never Married". Putting the philosophical arguments aside, I would like to say that I use the "Never Married" approach simply to keep me from looking for a spouse for that individual at a later date. I need it out in front of me, not buried in the notes somewhere so the Marriage Screen is a good place for me to enter "Never Married". As far as Unmarried and Not Married is concerned, it doesn't take long to see that a person was born out of wedlock when you see his surname the same as the mother's and an Unknown in the Father's position. Jerry

Over the years the church tracked temple ordinance dates in different kinds of systems. In order to automatically migrate in some data from the system used prior to 1970 they were not able to get the program to copy the dates. They thought it was better to have them there with partial information than not there at all. Their goal is to eventually get all of it there and correct but it is taking manual effort to set it straight. Alan Jones Mission Viejo, Calif. -----Original Message----- From: bbousha@comcast.net [mailto:bbousha@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 5:17 PM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] ordinance dates? I've been searching the IGI for missing ordinance dates on some of my family and have noticed an entry I don't understand. It is the entry "prior to1970" and is also sometimes written as <1970>. It seems to be used in lieu of the actual date. I guess my question is what happened in 1970 that was so important that it was granted an exception to the rules of entering dates? I searched carefully in the text book I used to learn genealogy from, but it was printed in the 50's and would be unlikely to have anything about the 1970's in it. Can anyone help? -- Byron O. Bousha bbousha@comcast.net (503)231-7190 ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List Search http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=PAF-5-USERS

Richard, I see your point. But, as Jerry pointed out, it's good to have some bold notation on the Individual screen to remind you of the situation. Maybe a better entry in the Married Name field would be "No marriage records found." Or, "believed to have never married." Dick Cazier ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Rands" <rrands@cfmc.com> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > Since I am a big proponent of using the Married Name field, I'd like to > respond to this suggestion with some reservations. > I have always been reluctant to enter any comment that suggests not > married, unmarried, or never married. First of all the notion of marriage > has evolved significantly over the centuries of recorded history, and the > recording of marriages has vacillated back and forth between civil > authorities, religious authorities, and families. My reluctance to making > such a comment in the most visible fields is that the connotation of not > married carries a lot of negative baggage, and that putting such a comment > where it is readily seen seems so final. Such a comment will stop anyone > from ever looking further for a spouse. What if a parent, angry that a > daughter married someone unacceptable, entered that comment in a family > bible? I can imagine a lot of similar circumstances that would lead to > such a situation. Many times there is a common-law spouse that may not be > recorded, but should have been. I have seen cases where a young person > was married for a few weeks and ended up getting a divorce or annulment > without ever telling anyone. As far as the rest of the family was > concerned, that person never married. I have tried to convince myself > that having a not-married comment is actually useful except buried in the > notes. > > I recall one experience some years ago when I was searching through some > British parish records. that covered a lengthy period of time. The > parish priests were consistent about noting the BB in the record for > bastard born. At one point I began to notice that there was an unusual > number of children in the record that had been born before the parents > were married, or too soon after the marriage. It was so unusual that I > asked the professional genealogist on duty. I was told that there were > times during plagues and other similar times when the infant survival rate > was so low, that it became common for betrothed couples to bear a child > before marriage to make certain it would survive. Sometimes they waited > until it was clear that the child was alive and kicking in the womb before > the official marriage. Others waited to see if the child was male before > getting married. > > I always ask myself, "does this comment serve any real purpose?" If > someone without a recorded spouse has children in the database, PAF > automatically enters Unknown. I believe that is sufficient information > for that circumstance. If there are no children listed, then I believe > that leaving the spouse blank is appropriate with any comments about > marriages being placed in the notes. If you have the names of both the > father and the mother, but there is no officially recorded date, I believe > blank here is appropriate as well. We just don't know the circumstances > and leaving it blank serves to indicate that you don't know. Entering > something that may be incorrect seems to judgmental and final. > > Just my thoughts > Richard Rands > > At 01:24 PM 7/18/2005 -0700, Alishea Durham wrote: >>My thoughts go back to a previous discussion on the >>Married Name field. Some folks have suggested putting >>the spouses full name in this field. I could see >>putting in Unmarried for someone who never did. >> >> >> >>--- FHB39@cs.com wrote: >> >> > In the marriage box instead of the date I put >> > unwed.. >> > Since she had a child, in the spouse space I put >> > unknown since the marriage >> > information is unwed I'm hoping that anyone reading >> > it will realize that the >> > child's father is unknown. This child was born in >> > Bavaria in 1863. His >> > baptismal records in the church records state that >> > he is the bastard son of >> > Catharine. >> > If there had not been any child I would have put >> > none in the spouse box >> > Fran >> > >> > >> > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >> > Replying to Posts >> > When quoting a post you're replying to, omit >> > signatures and taglines that are appended to the >> > post. >> > >> > >> >> >>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >>Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >>http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb > http://www.rootsweb.com/ > >

On the Individual screen, down in the Other information area, I have been using the Married Name block to just enter Never Married. I know the block is intended for use with females, but. for this purpose, it should work just as well for men. Dick Cazier ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandra L Johnson" <kjohnson@citlink.net> To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:42 AM Subject: [PAF-5] unmarried citation > Hey ya'll, (my son is serving in the Oklahoma Tulsa so it is my new > word) > > Does anyone have any suggestions as to where to put that an individual > is unmarried? If you don't put the information that they didn't marry > in this life, it looks like perhaps you just don't know the spouse's > name. I know it can go into the notes, but I would like this bit of > information to show when looking at the individual. > > My grandfather had four brothers out of five that didn't marry - I know > that but others looking at my program would not know and think that I > didn't know the spouse. > > Thanks for a great list. > > Sandra Johnson > Golden Valley, Arizona > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > PAF @ FamilySearch Internet Genealogy Service > http://www.familysearch.org/eng/paf/ > >

Since I am a big proponent of using the Married Name field, I'd like to respond to this suggestion with some reservations. I have always been reluctant to enter any comment that suggests not married, unmarried, or never married. First of all the notion of marriage has evolved significantly over the centuries of recorded history, and the recording of marriages has vacillated back and forth between civil authorities, religious authorities, and families. My reluctance to making such a comment in the most visible fields is that the connotation of not married carries a lot of negative baggage, and that putting such a comment where it is readily seen seems so final. Such a comment will stop anyone from ever looking further for a spouse. What if a parent, angry that a daughter married someone unacceptable, entered that comment in a family bible? I can imagine a lot of similar circumstances that would lead to such a situation. Many times there is a common-law spouse that may not be recorded, but should have been. I have seen cases where a young person was married for a few weeks and ended up getting a divorce or annulment without ever telling anyone. As far as the rest of the family was concerned, that person never married. I have tried to convince myself that having a not-married comment is actually useful except buried in the notes. I recall one experience some years ago when I was searching through some British parish records. that covered a lengthy period of time. The parish priests were consistent about noting the BB in the record for bastard born. At one point I began to notice that there was an unusual number of children in the record that had been born before the parents were married, or too soon after the marriage. It was so unusual that I asked the professional genealogist on duty. I was told that there were times during plagues and other similar times when the infant survival rate was so low, that it became common for betrothed couples to bear a child before marriage to make certain it would survive. Sometimes they waited until it was clear that the child was alive and kicking in the womb before the official marriage. Others waited to see if the child was male before getting married. I always ask myself, "does this comment serve any real purpose?" If someone without a recorded spouse has children in the database, PAF automatically enters Unknown. I believe that is sufficient information for that circumstance. If there are no children listed, then I believe that leaving the spouse blank is appropriate with any comments about marriages being placed in the notes. If you have the names of both the father and the mother, but there is no officially recorded date, I believe blank here is appropriate as well. We just don't know the circumstances and leaving it blank serves to indicate that you don't know. Entering something that may be incorrect seems to judgmental and final. Just my thoughts Richard Rands At 01:24 PM 7/18/2005 -0700, Alishea Durham wrote: >My thoughts go back to a previous discussion on the >Married Name field. Some folks have suggested putting >the spouses full name in this field. I could see >putting in Unmarried for someone who never did. > > > >--- FHB39@cs.com wrote: > > > In the marriage box instead of the date I put > > unwed.. > > Since she had a child, in the spouse space I put > > unknown since the marriage > > information is unwed I'm hoping that anyone reading > > it will realize that the > > child's father is unknown. This child was born in > > Bavaria in 1863. His > > baptismal records in the church records state that > > he is the bastard son of > > Catharine. > > If there had not been any child I would have put > > none in the spouse box > > Fran > > > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > > Replying to Posts > > When quoting a post you're replying to, omit > > signatures and taglines that are appended to the > > post. > > > > > > >==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/

In the marriage box instead of the date I put unwed.. Since she had a child, in the spouse space I put unknown since the marriage information is unwed I'm hoping that anyone reading it will realize that the child's father is unknown. This child was born in Bavaria in 1863. His baptismal records in the church records state that he is the bastard son of Catharine. If there had not been any child I would have put none in the spouse box Fran

My thoughts go back to a previous discussion on the Married Name field. Some folks have suggested putting the spouses full name in this field. I could see putting in Unmarried for someone who never did. --- FHB39@cs.com wrote: > In the marriage box instead of the date I put > unwed.. > Since she had a child, in the spouse space I put > unknown since the marriage > information is unwed I'm hoping that anyone reading > it will realize that the > child's father is unknown. This child was born in > Bavaria in 1863. His > baptismal records in the church records state that > he is the bastard son of > Catharine. > If there had not been any child I would have put > none in the spouse box > Fran > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > Replying to Posts > When quoting a post you're replying to, omit > signatures and taglines that are appended to the > post. > >

Hey ya'll, (my son is serving in the Oklahoma Tulsa so it is my new word) Does anyone have any suggestions as to where to put that an individual is unmarried? If you don't put the information that they didn't marry in this life, it looks like perhaps you just don't know the spouse's name. I know it can go into the notes, but I would like this bit of information to show when looking at the individual. My grandfather had four brothers out of five that didn't marry - I know that but others looking at my program would not know and think that I didn't know the spouse. Thanks for a great list. Sandra Johnson Golden Valley, Arizona

please discontinue sending emails as I would like to unsubscribe. thank you.

CAREFUL: My recollection is that there is a one-bit difference between a *.bak and a *.dat file for PAF 2.3. Consequently, renaming the files will not work. Just last week a patron brought a PAF 2.31 backup disk into our Family History Center. Since we have PAF versions 2, 3, 4, and 5 on one of our computers (all of those versions are included on the CD) I was able to Restore and then Open the database. I next made a GEDCOM file (on the hard drive), opened PAF 5 and Imported that GEDCOM file. It worked without any problems. Another caution. Before I made the GEDCOM file I ran the database check and fix function. It found three errors in the marriage records and fixed them. Lorin Lund wrote: > But as far as 'restoring' *.dat files from *.bak files for > PAF 2.3, I believe it only involves renaming them. > > I have heard that PAF 5 can recognize and convert > PAF 2.3 data files. > > You might try this: > > Create an empty folder on your harddrive. Copy the *.bak files to that > folder. > Rename them to .dat files. (Just change the .bak to > .dat on each file). > > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: > Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time > http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ > > >

Dear Listers, Quick ? I have PAF5 program and some files in that, should I be able to export those files to someone else who has downloaded PAF5? Does it have to be GEDCOM, or can I just transfer a PAF5 file. Thanks for your help. Steph.

You can do it as a PAF file, a backup of PAF file, a GEDCOM, etc. They all work. I think a straight PAF is easiest but a PAF backup is smaller. Alan Jones Mission Viejo, Calif. -----Original Message----- From: Stephanie Cocks [mailto:steph-ken@bigpond.com] Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 12:17 AM To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [PAF-5] Exporting files Dear Listers, Quick ? I have PAF5 program and some files in that, should I be able to export those files to someone else who has downloaded PAF5? Does it have to be GEDCOM, or can I just transfer a PAF5 file. Thanks for your help. Steph. ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== AVG Anti-Virus Users Disable the 'Certify outgoing messages' option via the E-mail Scanner tab.

Whether the PAF file or the backup (preferred if you do not do an export), be sure that the other person is aware that restoring to anything with the same name will delete what ever they have with that name. If you were just transferring the latest from one of your computers to another, the replacement is likely what you want. But be careful, particularly when you are sending it to someone else that is new to PAF. The advantage of the GEDCOM (though the backup is a lot smaller as a compressed file) is that a GEDCOM can be imported to another database if desired. That has it's own pitfalls also and is not necessarily a good idea, but it is one of the purposes of GEDCOMS. You can not import from a backup or PAF file without first making a GEDCOM. The advantage of sending the backup file is the large reduction in file size. Hope that helps explain the pros and cons a bit. Bill On 16 Jul 2005 at 21:28, Wayne Jones wrote: > Transfer via a backup file -- not the paf file. > > > Aloha > Wayne, NH6K > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephanie Cocks [mailto:steph-ken@bigpond.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:17 PM > To: PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [PAF-5] Exporting files > > Dear Listers, > Quick ? > I have PAF5 program and some files in that, should I be able to export those > files to someone else who has downloaded PAF5? > Does it have to be GEDCOM, or can I just transfer a PAF5 file. > Thanks for your help. > Steph. > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > AVG Anti-Virus Users > Disable the 'Certify outgoing messages' option via the E-mail Scanner tab. > > > ==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== > FreeBMD - Free Access to England and Wales Civil Registration Index > Volunteer as a Transcriber Today! > http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ >

Lorin Lund wrote: > svgutman@cox.net wrote: > >> Lorin, >> >> >> Saw your old message post at Roots Web >> (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PAF-5-USERS/2005-04/1114544204). >> I have been trying to help my mother restore her PAF research. Her >> computer crashed and all she had were .bak files in PAF 2.31 on >> floppy. I believe I've figured out that we have to restore the PAF >> 2.31 .bak files to PAF 2.31 .dat files using PAF 2.31 software, which >> we don't have now. >> >> >> >> If you did actually find an old copy and wouldn't mind sending it >> along, your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much for >> your time. >> >> >> >> Sharon Gutman >> > See if you can download it using the following URL. > > http://www.infowest.com/personal/w/wbs/paf23.zip I stand corrected. The above link won't work for MS Internet Explorer users. (It works fine for Mozilla Firefox) Just go to http://www.infowest.com/personal/w/wbs/index.html and click on the "paf 2.3" link.

svgutman@cox.net wrote: > Lorin, > > > Saw your old message post at Roots Web > (http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/PAF-5-USERS/2005-04/1114544204). > I have been trying to help my mother restore her PAF research. Her > computer crashed and all she had were .bak files in PAF 2.31 on > floppy. I believe I've figured out that we have to restore the PAF > 2.31 .bak files to PAF 2.31 .dat files using PAF 2.31 software, which > we don't have now. > > > > If you did actually find an old copy and wouldn't mind sending it > along, your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much for > your time. > > > > Sharon Gutman > See if you can download it using the following URL. http://www.infowest.com/personal/w/wbs/paf23.zip But as far as 'restoring' *.dat files from *.bak files for PAF 2.3, I believe it only involves renaming them. I have heard that PAF 5 can recognize and convert PAF 2.3 data files. You might try this: Create an empty folder on your harddrive. Copy the *.bak files to that folder. Rename them to .dat files. (Just change the .bak to .dat on each file). Start up PAF 5 and use File|Open navigate to the new folder that holds the newly renamed .dat files. Click Open. If PAF 5 recognizes them and is able to convert them directly it will ask you if that is what you want done. If you can't get PAF 5 to open it directly you might be able to get it to find the PAF 2.3 data set by getting it into search mode. ------------ Search mode -------------------- If you open PAF 5 it usually opens the last .paf file you were using. If you close that file without closing PAF (File|Close) (so the main window under the menu bar is blank grey) and then exit PAF. And then restart PAF it will present a box with several buttons. One of those is labelled 'Search' or some such. If you click on that button it will search your whole hard drive for PAF datasets. I know it will find and list PAF 3 datasets. I'm pretty sure it will also list PAF 2.3 data sets. Once it has listed all the PAF data sets on your hard drive you can select the one you want to open. If it is an older format PAF 5 will ask you if you want to convert it to the PAF 5 format. I hope this helps.