At the moment, I have not tried AQ. I like many people am completely happy with PAF 5.2. I suppose I may have to consider trying AQ at some stage if what you say is a likely scenario and PAF becomes incompatible with later Windows versions. But I can say at the moment PAF still runs smoothly with Vista and Windows 7 Brings to mind the old saying " If it aint broke , why fix it?" kind regards Ann ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lila Garner" <lilagarner@hotmail.com> To: <paf-5-users@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Ancestral Quest > > Future versions of Windows are not expected to support PAF, or at least > that's what the warnings seem to be. I have it on 98, ME, and 2 XP and > it's okay. > >> From: mjharvey@bravo.net.au >> To: paf-5-users@rootsweb.com >> Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 10:26:28 +1000 >> Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Ancestral Quest >> >> Lila wrote, >> >> > The LDS has announced that they are not going to continue updating or >> > supporting PAF, which seems to me to be the only reason to change as >> > I'm >> > very satisfied with what it does. When I get settled after a move I'm >> > going to buy AQ and get used to it before I have to convert to a new >> > Windows version that won't handle PAF. Lila >> >> Just which version of Windows won't handle PAF? >> >> I have PAF 5.2 running on both our computers.... one computer on XP and >> the >> other computer on Win7 >> >> I have also have PAF installed and RUNNING on my laptop which uses Vista. >> >> I also use AQ v12.1.27 and after using it for some time now I find that I >> use it in preference to PAF. >> I have used PAF in it's various forms for about 25 years now but AQ gets >> the >> nod for all round performance. >> >> What I do like about AQ is that it interfaces smoothly with PAF without >> hiccups. >> >> Data integrity is maintained. >> Alterations and additions to data in either program on the same computer >> were automatically updated in the other. >> >> After importing Gedcoms I use Family Insight to do the 'match and merge' >> as >> this allows me far more control >> matching data and eliminating the need to edit out duplication of notes >> and >> marriages etc. that happen in PAF's merge. >> >> Don't get me wrong. PAF does do some things better, but not enough for it >> to >> be my primary program. >> Which is why I run the two programs in parallel for those occasions that >> I >> need those options. >> >> And yes, AQ is worth shelling out for. BTY, the cost is peanuts compared >> to >> the likes of Family Tree Maker >> which has more versions than the continuing story of Rocky Balboa. >> >> Regards >> Mike Harvey >> Merewether NSW >> mjharvey@bravo.net.au >> "Being over the hill is better than being under it." >> >> If you forward this correspondence, please delete the forwarding history, >> which includes my email address. >> It is a courtesy to me and others who may not wish to have their email >> addresses sent all over the world. >> Erasing the history helps prevent Spammers from mining addresses and >> viruses >> from being propagated >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ======= >> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. >> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.17270) >> http://free.pctools.com/ >> ======= >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> PAF-5-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > PAF-5-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Ann My thoughts exactly However I thought it best to check out an alternative and also to see if there were any additional facilities that might improve on the PAF set up Having downloaded the free Ancestral Quest I find the very facilities that might persuade me to use AQ are not available in the free version If you want to take a look at it see http://www.ancquest.com/index.htm Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > At the moment, I have not tried AQ. I like many people am completely happy > with PAF 5.2. > I suppose I may have to consider trying AQ at some stage if what you say is > a likely scenario and PAF becomes incompatible with later Windows versions. > But I can say at the moment PAF still runs smoothly with Vista and Windows 7 > Brings to mind the old saying " If it aint broke , why fix it?" > kind regards > Ann