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 On 3 December 2012 22:12, Tony Holkham <[email protected]> wrote: > I absolutely agree. Perhaps you should ask for a refund, or at least sell it > to a Windows user for cost. And lets keep up the pressure - who knows, > someone may have the answer. > > Hope you don't resist 'going over' to Mac - from my experience and that of > several friends, you won't regret it. On cost alone, my sister has spent > twice as much keeping her Windows machine going that she would have spent on > a Mac - but will she listen...? > > For the record, my iMac has been running for 15+ hours a day for 5 years now > without missing a beat. All I have spent on it is £35 to expand the memory. > If only we had decent broadband in this little corner of Wales, I would be a > happy man. > > Cheers, > > Tony > > > On 3 December 2012 06:46, Cordelia Hull <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >> > > > > > > -- > _________________ > Tony Holkham > Writer > www.tonyholkham.co.uk >