Unfortunately, Tony, from this distance (Australia) one does not see the box before one makes one's purchase - that's why I suggested the Mac incompatibility be made known to prospective purchasers BEFORE they make their purchases . . . . so Mac users don't waste their money :-) Cheers, Cordelia 14526 On 3 December 2012 08:26, Tony Holkham <[email protected]> wrote: > It certainly doesn't run on my Mac, and I wouldn't expect it to as it only > says on the box "minimum requirement Windows 95 or later". > > Fortunately I've hung on to an ancient Windows 95 laptop on which I can > access the SMI but I fervently hope that one day SFHG will produce a > Mac-compatible version. > > Macscrimination, if you ask me... :-)> only joking before you all jump > in... > > Tony 9967 > www.tonyholkham.org > > On 2 December 2012 19:40, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Joe >> >> It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac >> computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills >> (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). >> >> My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use >> it on my computer. >> >> Cordelia >> 14526 >> >> On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage >> > Index >> > which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 >> > marriages >> > by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker >> > marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses >> > who >> > married in Surrey, London and Fleet. >> > The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later >> > copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is >> > on >> > CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. >> > >> > When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a >> > finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration >> > which >> > began on 1st July 1837. >> > If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the >> > Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the >> > preceding >> > 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set up >> > Parish Registers. >> > >> > A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like a >> > writer without a dictionary ! >> > >> > Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 >> >> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> >> >> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little >> >> further. >> >> Judy Excell >> > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM >> >> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... >> >> Phil Vaughan >> >> >> >> Roger Nash >> >> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM >> >> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage >> >> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a >> >> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to >> >> Martha. >> >> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe >> >> them >> >> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith >> >> Nightingale >> >> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding >> >> them >> >> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! >> > >> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 >> >> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> >> >> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for >> >> me? >> >> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records >> >> in >> >> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra >> >> 22/11/1820 >> >> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas >> >> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha >> >> Witness???? HOBDEN James >> >> Witness???? TAYLOR John >> >> ? >> >> ? >> >> Neal >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > > -- > _________________ > Tony Holkham > Writer > www.tonyholkham.co.uk >

To be fair, the SMI is not the only thing that is troublesome. I bought the LDS 1881 Census some years ago, when I was using a PC running Windows XP. Since switching to Vista and later Windows 7, I find it will not run on either OS. A shame, as I found it very useful. I know the FamilySearch site allows access to the 1881, but you cannot browse it to find neighbours in the same was as you can with the CDs. If anyone has come up with a solution I would be pleased to hear it. I have tried running in compatibility mode, and it gives every appearance of installing, but then comes up with an error message. Steve Selby

Sorry, it was Cathy who was resisting, not you! Yes, I've been using Macs since the 80s, too, when I persuaded my then employer to buy one. For my own business in 1990 I started with one of those that looked like a portable TV, then had an early laptop - horrendous price but turned out to be well worth it. How did Mac do it - 4MB RAM and 40MB memory that would run Quark XPress? I only sold it a couple of years ago - still running - to a collector. I bought a laptop (running Windows) in the 90s on cost grounds (so I thought, oops) but it wasn't a happy time, so I came back to Mac in 2007. Sorry for getting off topic - enthusiasm overload... Tony 9967 On 3 December 2012 11:27, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: > Macs are just wonderful. I have been using one since 1984 (not the > SAME one, obviously - I have a MacBook now) and I have never had any > troubles, ever - no crashes, no viruses, no stuff-ups at all. I use > Reunion for my family history stuff, which is great. And nowadays you > can get just about anything to run on a Mac - except the SMI :-) > > But all is not lost. I have a non-genealogical friend with a PC who > has agreed to let me use my SMI CD on his machine. > > Cordelia > 14526 > > -- _________________ Tony Holkham * Writer * *www.tonyholkham.co.uk*

Ah, I recall that thread (now I've read it) - thanks, Cathy. One solution was to partition the Mac to run Windows. I looked into it, but decided against it as it seemed like trying to fix something that wasn't broke. The problem is the SMI disk, not the Mac. I agree that, Judy & Cordelia, that the incompatibility should be made clearer but, so as not to lose sight of the rabbit, I would love to know what it is about the SMI database that prevents it from being issued in a format that all operating systems can use. I run Microsoft Office on my iMac and haven't had compatibility problems with anything else. It may be somewhat academic, but if someone out there can explain, I'd be delighted to know what the problem actually is. It's usually simple these days to convert databases from one format to another - we've been doing it since the 1980s. I for one would be prepared to pay a smidgin extra for a Mac version of the SMI. Best wishes, Tony 9967 www.tonyholkham.org On 3 December 2012 00:29, Cathy O'Brien <[email protected]> wrote: > The more recent link that I was thinking about was actually discussing > issues with different variations of Microsoft and the SFHG marriage CD but > in 2008 there was a discussion about making it work on a MAC the link is: > > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/sfhg/2008-07/1215205959 > > I am resisting switching to a Mac because of issues like this, and it is > not > just isolated to genealogy s/w. > > Not sure if this helps but I hope you work it out. > > Cathy > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > Of Cordelia Hull > Sent: 02 December 2012 14:40 > To: Joe Bysh > Cc: SFHG SxFamHXGrp; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SFHG] SFHG Sussex Marriage Index > > Thanks, Joe > > It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac > computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills > (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). > > My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use > it on my computer. > > Cordelia > 14526 > > -- _________________ Tony Holkham * Writer * *www.tonyholkham.co.uk*

Just checked the website under publications. The first line is: CDs are PC compatible. SMI CD not compatible with Macs. SFH CD not fully compatible but usable but perhaps it could be highlighted in some manner. Judy Excell -----Original Message----- From: Cordelia Hull Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:46 AM To: Tony Holkham Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [SFHG] SFHG Sussex Marriage Index Unfortunately, Tony, from this distance (Australia) one does not see the box before one makes one's purchase - that's why I suggested the Mac incompatibility be made known to prospective purchasers BEFORE they make their purchases . . . . so Mac users don't waste their money :-) Cheers, Cordelia 14526 On 3 December 2012 08:26, Tony Holkham <[email protected]> wrote: > It certainly doesn't run on my Mac, and I wouldn't expect it to as it only > says on the box "minimum requirement Windows 95 or later". > > Fortunately I've hung on to an ancient Windows 95 laptop on which I can > access the SMI but I fervently hope that one day SFHG will produce a > Mac-compatible version. > > Macscrimination, if you ask me... :-)> only joking before you all jump > in... > > Tony 9967 > www.tonyholkham.org > > On 2 December 2012 19:40, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks, Joe >> >> It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac >> computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills >> (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). >> >> My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use >> it on my computer. >> >> Cordelia >> 14526 >> >> On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage >> > Index >> > which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 >> > marriages >> > by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker >> > marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses >> > who >> > married in Surrey, London and Fleet. >> > The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later >> > copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is >> > on >> > CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. >> > >> > When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a >> > finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration >> > which >> > began on 1st July 1837. >> > If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the >> > Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the >> > preceding >> > 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set >> > up >> > Parish Registers. >> > >> > A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like >> > a >> > writer without a dictionary ! >> > >> > Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 >> >> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> >> >> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little >> >> further. >> >> Judy Excell >> > >> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM >> >> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... >> >> Phil Vaughan >> >> >> >> Roger Nash >> >> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM >> >> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage >> >> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a >> >> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to >> >> Martha. >> >> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I >> >> believe >> >> them >> >> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith >> >> Nightingale >> >> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding >> >> them >> >> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! >> > >> >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 >> >> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> >> >> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for >> >> me? >> >> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records >> >> in >> >> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra >> >> 22/11/1820 >> >> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas >> >> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha >> >> Witness???? HOBDEN James >> >> Witness???? TAYLOR John >> >> ? >> >> ? >> >> Neal >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > > > > -- > _________________ > Tony Holkham > Writer > www.tonyholkham.co.uk > ------------------------------- 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

Steve, If you're running a Win7 Pro or Ulitmate, you can install Windows Virtual PC (available free at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/default.aspx) and run in XP Mode (also free) allowing you to run older software fairly painlessly. I use it to run a favourite graphics program, with no problem. Phil Vaughan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Selby Sent: December-03-12 8:12 AM To: 'SFHG-list' Subject: Re: [SFHG] SFHG Sussex Marriage Index To be fair, the SMI is not the only thing that is troublesome. I bought the LDS 1881 Census some years ago, when I was using a PC running Windows XP. Since switching to Vista and later Windows 7, I find it will not run on either OS. A shame, as I found it very useful. I know the FamilySearch site allows access to the 1881, but you cannot browse it to find neighbours in the same was as you can with the CDs. If anyone has come up with a solution I would be pleased to hear it. I have tried running in compatibility mode, and it gives every appearance of installing, but then comes up with an error message. Steve Selby ------------------------------- 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

Thanks, Joe It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use it on my computer. Cordelia 14526 On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: > I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage Index > which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 marriages > by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker > marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses who > married in Surrey, London and Fleet. > The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later > copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is on > CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. > > When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a > finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration which > began on 1st July 1837. > If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the > Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the preceding > 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set up > Parish Registers. > > A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like a > writer without a dictionary ! > > Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 >> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> >> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little >> further. >> Judy Excell > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM >> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... >> Phil Vaughan >> >> Roger Nash >> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM >> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage >> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a >> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to Martha. >> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe >> them >> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith Nightingale >> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding them >> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 >> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> >> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for me? >> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in >> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra >> 22/11/1820 >> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas >> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha >> Witness???? HOBDEN James >> Witness???? TAYLOR John >> ? >> ? >> Neal > > > ------------------------------- > 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

It's probably due to the protection system put on the cd not being compatible with a Mac. Lionel On 02/12/2012 22:44, Alan Gates wrote: > Nice to know as I was just about to order one! > > Chasemore > 10375 > On 2 Dec 2012, at 19:40, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Thanks, Joe >> >> It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac >> computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills >> (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). >> >> My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use >> it on my computer. >> >> Cordelia >> 14526 >> -- Take a look at the free Dropbox to keep copies of files safe in the 'clouds'. I get extra storage space if you use this link to register. http://db.tt/AFAsdJHX

Nice to know as I was just about to order one! Chasemore 10375 On 2 Dec 2012, at 19:40, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Joe > > It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac > computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills > (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). > > My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use > it on my computer. > > Cordelia > 14526 > > On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: >> I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage Index >> which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 marriages >> by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker >> marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses who >> married in Surrey, London and Fleet. >> The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later >> copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is on >> CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. >> >> When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a >> finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration which >> began on 1st July 1837. >> If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the >> Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the preceding >> 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set up >> Parish Registers. >> >> A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like a >> writer without a dictionary ! >> >> Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 >>> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> >>> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little >>> further. >>> Judy Excell >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM >>> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... >>> Phil Vaughan >>> >>> Roger Nash >>> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM >>> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage >>> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a >>> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to Martha. >>> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe >>> them >>> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith Nightingale >>> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding them >>> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! >> >>> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 >>> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> >>> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for me? >>> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in >>> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra >>> 22/11/1820 >>> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas >>> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha >>> Witness???? HOBDEN James >>> Witness???? TAYLOR John >>> ? >>> ? >>> Neal >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

It certainly doesn't run on my Mac, and I wouldn't expect it to as it only says on the box "minimum requirement Windows 95 or later". Fortunately I've hung on to an ancient Windows 95 laptop on which I can access the SMI but I fervently hope that one day SFHG will produce a Mac-compatible version. Macscrimination, if you ask me... :-)> only joking before you all jump in... Tony 9967 www.tonyholkham.org On 2 December 2012 19:40, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Joe > > It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac > computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills > (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). > > My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use > it on my computer. > > Cordelia > 14526 > > On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: > > I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage > Index > > which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 > marriages > > by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker > > marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses who > > married in Surrey, London and Fleet. > > The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later > > copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is > on > > CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. > > > > When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a > > finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration > which > > began on 1st July 1837. > > If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the > > Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the > preceding > > 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set up > > Parish Registers. > > > > A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like a > > writer without a dictionary ! > > > > Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 > >> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> > >> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little > >> further. > >> Judy Excell > > > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM > >> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... > >> Phil Vaughan > >> > >> Roger Nash > >> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM > >> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage > >> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a > >> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to > Martha. > >> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe > >> them > >> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith > Nightingale > >> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding > them > >> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! > > > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 > >> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> > >> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for > me? > >> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in > >> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra > >> 22/11/1820 > >> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas > >> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha > >> Witness???? HOBDEN James > >> Witness???? TAYLOR John > >> ? > >> ? > >> Neal > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- _________________ Tony Holkham * Writer * *www.tonyholkham.co.uk*

The more recent link that I was thinking about was actually discussing issues with different variations of Microsoft and the SFHG marriage CD but in 2008 there was a discussion about making it work on a MAC the link is: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/sfhg/2008-07/1215205959 I am resisting switching to a Mac because of issues like this, and it is not just isolated to genealogy s/w. Not sure if this helps but I hope you work it out. Cathy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cathy O'Brien Sent: 02 December 2012 16:32 To: 'Cordelia Hull'; 'Joe Bysh' Cc: 'SFHG SxFamHXGrp'; '[email protected]' Subject: Re: [SFHG] SFHG Sussex Marriage Index I am sure the discussion about the CD and MAC's has come up before, unfortunately I cannot remember the thread or I would give you the answer. Maybe searching the archive would help. If I get the chance I will try to find it for you. Cathy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cordelia Hull Sent: 02 December 2012 14:40 To: Joe Bysh Cc: SFHG SxFamHXGrp; [email protected] Subject: Re: [SFHG] SFHG Sussex Marriage Index Thanks, Joe It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use it on my computer. Cordelia 14526 On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: > I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage Index > which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 marriages > by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker > marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses who > married in Surrey, London and Fleet. > The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later > copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is on > CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. > > When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a > finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration which > began on 1st July 1837. > If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the > Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the preceding > 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set up > Parish Registers. > > A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like a > writer without a dictionary ! > > Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 >> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> >> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little >> further. >> Judy Excell > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM >> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... >> Phil Vaughan >> >> Roger Nash >> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM >> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage >> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a >> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to Martha. >> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe >> them >> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith Nightingale >> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding them >> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 >> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> >> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for me? >> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in >> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra >> 22/11/1820 >> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas >> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha >> Witness???? HOBDEN James >> Witness???? TAYLOR John >> ? >> ? >> Neal > > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------- 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5931 - Release Date: 12/01/12 ------------------------------- 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5931 - Release Date: 12/01/12

I am sure the discussion about the CD and MAC's has come up before, unfortunately I cannot remember the thread or I would give you the answer. Maybe searching the archive would help. If I get the chance I will try to find it for you. Cathy -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Cordelia Hull Sent: 02 December 2012 14:40 To: Joe Bysh Cc: SFHG SxFamHXGrp; [email protected] Subject: Re: [SFHG] SFHG Sussex Marriage Index Thanks, Joe It should also be noted that the CD doesn't seem to work on a Mac computer. I don't THINK it is just my lack of computer skills (although I am ready to stand corrected on that one any time). My SMI CD lies a-mouldering pristine in its pack because I cannot use it on my computer. Cordelia 14526 On 2 December 2012 23:25, Joe Bysh <[email protected]> wrote: > I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage Index > which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 marriages > by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker > marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses who > married in Surrey, London and Fleet. > The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later > copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is on > CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. > > When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a > finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration which > began on 1st July 1837. > If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the > Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the preceding > 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set up > Parish Registers. > > A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like a > writer without a dictionary ! > > Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 >> From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> >> Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little >> further. >> Judy Excell > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM >> The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... >> Phil Vaughan >> >> Roger Nash >> Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM >> Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage >> Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a >> marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to Martha. >> They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe >> them >> to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith Nightingale >> (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding them >> on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! > >> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 >> From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> >> Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for me? >> I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in >> Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra >> 22/11/1820 >> ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas >> Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha >> Witness???? HOBDEN James >> Witness???? TAYLOR John >> ? >> ? >> Neal > > > ------------------------------- > 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 ------------------------------- 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5931 - Release Date: 12/01/12

I sense some misunderstanding on this List about the Sussex Marriage Index which SFHG issued on CD in 2004 comprising details of over 300,000 marriages by Banns or Licence and includes Catholic, Nonconformist and Quaker marriages. As well as marriages in Sussex it includes Sussex spouses who married in Surrey, London and Fleet. The few addenda were put on the SFHG website and are included on later copies of the CD. But as the completed index of every extant record is on CD, SFHG have no plans to put the Index on the members' Data Archive. When the Index was conceived nearly 50 years ago it was intended as a finding device for EVERY known marriage prior to General Registration which began on 1st July 1837. If you have found just one Sussex ancestor who married before 1837, the Index can potentially find thousands more of your ancestors in the preceding 12 generations in the 300 years back to 1538 when King Henry VIII set up Parish Registers. A Sussex Family Historian without the Sussex Marriage Index CD is like a writer without a dictionary ! Joe Bysh, Publications Officer, SFHG #5525 ----- Original Message ----- > > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:26:44 -0000 > From: Judy Excell <[email protected]> > Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little > further. > Judy Excell > Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM > The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. .... > Phil Vaughan > > Roger Nash > Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM > Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage > Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a > marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to Martha. > They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe > them > to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith Nightingale > (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding them > on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:58 -0500 > From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> > Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for me? > I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in > Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra > 22/11/1820 > ?Groom??????????HOBDEN Thomas > Bride???????? ????STARLEY Martha > Witness???? HOBDEN James > Witness???? TAYLOR John > ? > ? > Neal

Hello everyone, My Great Gt Gt Gt Grandparents were Nicholas Newnham and Sarah Harman who married in Fletching on the 29th April 1790. I have never been able to confirm the baptism of Nicholas, but suspect from other records , that he was the son of John Newnham ( Newnam ) and Ann from Framfield . The Data Archive gives his baptism as 8th October 1758. I would be very interested if anyone else had connections with this family Many thanks Ann Golton.

Sandra,   I have the Bolney PR transcript CD.  James Hobden was a witness just once - ________________________________ From: sandra moffatt <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, 30 November 2012, 14:04 Subject: [SFHG] SMI-request Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for me? I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830)  Thank you,Sandra                         ------------------------------- 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 22/11/1820  Groom          HOBDEN Thomas Bride             STARLEY Martha Witness     HOBDEN James Witness     TAYLOR John     Neal

Think I should point out that SMI is up to 1837, erratically a little further. Judy Excell Let me not seek a bargain that leaves another hungry. -----Original Message----- From: Phil Vaughan Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 7:26 PM To: 'Roger Nash' ; [email protected] Subject: Re: [SFHG] Denyer marriage The SMI only covers as far as 1850, Roger. But I can confirm that a James Denyer married a Martha Nightingale in 1870. The marriage was registered in Brighton in Q3 of 1870 --- volume 2b, page 372. Phil Vaughan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roger Nash Sent: November-27-12 1:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [SFHG] Denyer marriage Please can someone with access to Sussex Marriage Index check out a marriage in about 1870 +- 5 years for James Denyer of Kirdford to Martha. They have no children in 1871 census in Plaistow Kirdford, so I believe them to be newly married. A possible marriage is to Martha Meredith Nightingale (born Warnham) in 1871 Petworth District. My normal method of finding them on the same page in the indexes on Ancestry has defeated me! ------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------- 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

Does anyone with access to the Sussex marriage index do a look up for me? I'm trying to see if a James Hobden appeared on many marriage records in Bolney as a witness. (1800-1830) Thank you,Sandra

how will information be archived if everyone replies offlist. Just a thought from Joe Austen 9934 in OZ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Noyce" <[email protected]> To: "Heather Brooks" <[email protected]>; "SUSSEX PLUS PLUS" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [SFHG] John and Emma Hood > Replied off line. > > Graham Noyce > St Ives Hunts > Mem No 9038 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > Behalf > Of Heather Brooks > Sent: 28 November 2012 22:39 > To: SUSSEX PLUS PLUS; [email protected] > Subject: [SFHG] John and Emma Hood > > Hi, seem to be do all the asking recently, but here go's. > John and Emma Hood are in the 1881 census at Edmonton with children > George, > Harriet, Orris/Horace, and Elizabeth. > I would like to have details of this family in the 1891 and 1901 census > please. Regards Heather > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5924 - Release Date: 11/28/12 > > > ------------------------------- > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5924 - Release Date: 11/28/12 >

Replied off line. Graham Noyce St Ives Hunts Mem No 9038 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Heather Brooks Sent: 28 November 2012 22:39 To: SUSSEX PLUS PLUS; [email protected] Subject: [SFHG] John and Emma Hood Hi, seem to be do all the asking recently, but here go's. John and Emma Hood are in the 1881 census at Edmonton with children George, Harriet, Orris/Horace, and Elizabeth. I would like to have details of this family in the 1891 and 1901 census please. Regards Heather ------------------------------- 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2634/5924 - Release Date: 11/28/12

Hi, seem to be do all the asking recently, but here go's. John and Emma Hood are in the 1881 census at Edmonton with children George, Harriet, Orris/Horace, and Elizabeth. I would like to have details of this family in the 1891 and 1901 census please. Regards Heather