Good morning. I ahve been using PAF for ever and really like it. the list I belong to was sent the following "Whoah there! Be careful about PAF. Judging by what I've been reading in various blogs, the LDS will let PAF die a natural death once they roll out the new version of FamilySearch. " So I am wondering what is to happen to my very relaible PAF. And waht does that mean? Would be grateful for advice. Marg Port Stephens NSW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gaylon Findlay" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:56 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Re PAF2wiz > Cheryl: > > I haven't tried this, but I think you could. The problem with this > approach is that you'd lose all the nice formatting, and the text would > contain the information, but not be very pretty. > > If you're primarily working with the two narrative reports -- the > Ahnentafel and Modified Register, there are better ways to do this > (described below.) For other reports you might include such as fan > charts, descendant charts, pedigree charts, family group sheets, etc., > this text format would not be presentable in a published book. > > If you're primarily using the Ahnentafel and Modified Book reports in > your family book, don't even use the 'Publish a Family Book' feature. > Just create these reports to RTF or WordPerfect format, then use Word or > WordPerfect to combine the various smaller reports into a single larger > report, along with any other documents, and finally generate the index > -- when you generate these two reports from PAFWiz to an RTF or > WordPerfect file, it puts the index entries into the document, so this > should be an easy task. > > Gaylon > > > singhals wrote: >> Gaylon Findlay wrote: >> >> >>> Mareen: >>> >>> If you want an RTF file, like you'd get in PAF, you use the method Bill >>> outlines. >>> >>> The "Publish a Family Book" allows you to combine several reports all >>> into one large report with a master table of contents and master index. >>> This option does not have the capability of generating to an RTF file -- >>> you can either print it directly to your printer or to a PDF file. >>> >>> Gaylon >>> >>> >>> Bill Buchanan wrote: >>> >>> >> >> >> Gaylon, >> >> couldn't you install a generic text printer and select that >> as the default? And then once you've got the text file, you >> can do whatever you want with it by way of fonts, >> insertions, etc etc. You'd probably have to remark all the >> index entries, and that might not be worth minor tweaks in >> the layout/presentation. >> >> Also, seems to me I've heard about a freeware/shareware >> program that lets you edit pdf files -- will PAFWhiz let >> you install that one? >> >> Cheryl >> >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Marg, If you have been following this forum you are more aware of the real situation than most people. PAF is not dead. Mind you, there are some very good options that users can switch to, if they want. Ancestral Quest and Legacy can import PAF files directly without needing convert everything to gedcom format. But PAF isn't going to disappear any time soon. Ohana Software's Family Insight software plans to provide PAF with the ability to download from New FamilySearch, adding capabilities to PAF. PAF and New FamilySearch are not mutually exclusive. Each has a role to play. The more I use nFS, the more I see a role for PAF in maintaining a single-user database where I have can add anything I want, without worrying about how it will affect someone else. nFS is a huge multi-user database, where every change you make affects the research of others. I made a mistake on a gedcom file I uploaded to nFS the other day, and it took me 8 hours of repetitive work to correct it. I could have corrected it in PAF in 10 minutes. I have heard it described as a "paradigm shift" or "a change in orientation". It is no longer "my genealogy", "my ancestors", and "my research". Instead it is "our genealogy", "our ancestors" and "our research". We give up some autonomy, some control, but gain the advantage of being able to pool our efforts to create a genealogy of the human family. This will inevitably lead to disagreements, but nFS is designed to accommodate these. It is still in an early stage of development but looks very promising. Bill Buchanan ----- Original Message ----- From: "marg" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 2:13 PM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Re PAF2wiz > Good morning. > > I ahve been using PAF for ever and really like it. the list I belong to was > sent the following > > "Whoah there! Be careful about PAF. Judging by what I've been reading in > various blogs, the LDS will let PAF die a natural death once they roll > out the new version of FamilySearch. " > > So I am wondering what is to happen to my very relaible PAF. And waht does > that mean? > > Would be grateful for advice. > > > Marg > > Port Stephens NSW