At the risk of touching the third rail. . . Karen's situation is a very strong argument for considering getting our TMG data into another program so it can be supported if we are fortunate enough to have someone who wants to perpetuate it. I would think even a mediocre transfer would be better than our research being totally lost because no one wants to fight the fight of trying to get unsupported software running. I would think we should do this even if we intend to continue using TMG forever. Kudos to Karen for making the effort with TMG! Certainly at the very least we should all consider documenting whatever would need to done by someone totally unfamiliar with the product to get TMG up and running and get to our data. John N. -----Original Message----- From: Karen Isaacson Leverich [mailto:karen@mtpinos.com] Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 2:53 PM To: tmg@rootsweb.com Subject: [TMG] Clueless questions about TMG First off, I do realize I'm late to the party and support for TMG has been discontinued. But I do need some help! I've been sent a Google drive with all of the genealogy files of a recently deceased genealogist ... Word files, image files, etc. Buried somewhere in this structure of folders and sub-folders MIGHT be her TMG database. The 1999 TMG manual says backups have the suffice .sqz, and I have found one such file. But 1999 was a long time ago. :-) If she were using a newer TMG, would .sqz still be the suffix? And what suffix(es) should I be looking for in order to find her most current (not backed up) database? Second ... assuming I find the files. Or the .sqz file is good stuff. I have a CD-ROM (hers) of TMG 6.x, and there is a long string written on it, presumably an access code. Is that all I need in order to install it? What version(s) of Windows would this work with? Or I've been told RootsMagic will import a TMG database ... the .sqz one? How much data is lost or does it do it all? Even if TMG is no longer supported, can I simply buy my own copy anyhow? Her daughter and I are trying to finish up a research project which was almost done, and while we have the written reports (the Word files), the sources are in her database (she was super careful about that), so we really need in. :-) Thanks for any help or advice! Karen

We've wrangled with this topic before (and it gets somewhat OT pretty quickly); let me summarize (and probably heavily editorialize): 1. There never has been a computer program that has outlived our data. Same is true of computer storage media. Think WordStar, Lotus 1-2-3, and 5.25-inch floppy discs. Therefore it's simply impossible to keep our work in electronic format and expect it to last. The best we can hope for is a relatively easy and valid series of transfers from each successive obsolescent program or medium to the "next new thing". 2. We likewise can never guess what our successors will have available (if we're fortunate enough to have successors). If said successors immediately follow us, I'd predict this issue will be less a problem, but again, we can't guarantee that. (My grandmother died in 1965. My father's cousins put her work into a book in 1983. A cousin and I were the next to pick it up, in 2002; we were the first to have computers and gen software. Try to imagine what tools a successor forty years from now will have available to work with your data!) 3. So possibly the safest way to keep our data is in printed form. Even so, paper can get flooded or burned. (Data re-entry from paper is not all that easy, but it can be done, and is possibly more likely to work than trying to extract data from the files of a long-obsolete program. Also, there's something to be said for the educational benefits of transcribing the whole database; the transcriber gets to "know" his/her family.) 4. Submitting paper reports (e.g. Journal and/or Box Charts) to a reliable repository is likely to make them safer than keeping them in your file cabinet. Not only are most repositories safer against fire and flood, but no heirs are going to come in and toss everything. So IMO, transferring our data to another program is not likely to help much to safeguard our data for the sake of our successors. Indeed, keeping it in TMG .sqz files might be a lot more likely to save it than putting it in some program which has a proprietary file format (and which itself might be discontinued and forever forgotten in the near future). So I'd say, good question, but there really isn't a great answer. Rick Van Dusen On 9/20/2015 3:10 PM, John Nunnally via wrote: > At the risk of touching the third rail. . . > > Karen's situation is a very strong argument for considering getting our TMG > data into another program so it can be supported if we are fortunate enough > to have someone who wants to perpetuate it. : : : > John N.

At 9/20/2015 18:10, you wrote: >At the risk of touching the third rail. . . > >Karen's situation is a very strong argument for considering getting our TMG >data into another program so it can be supported if we are fortunate enough >to have someone who wants to perpetuate it. I would think even a mediocre >transfer would be better than our research being totally lost because no one >wants to fight the fight of trying to get unsupported software running. I >would think we should do this even if we intend to continue using TMG >forever. Kudos to Karen for making the effort with TMG! > >Certainly at the very least we should all consider documenting whatever >would need to done by someone totally unfamiliar with the product to get TMG >up and running and get to our data. That is certainly your perogative. But, I certainly don't see the need to switch any time in the next five or more years. There are many experienced users here and on the TMG Forum that can help with all kinds of problems. No one, so far, has come up with an answer to Karen's slow operation. But, that is mainly because this kind of problem really needs hands-on expertise as too many variables are involved. For this reason, it tends to be a slow process of ask, receive suggestions, try, reply and get more suggestions. By the way, I know a number of TMG users who are still using old versions of TMG. They never upgraded because they don't work with genealogy that much. About a month ago, one of those was still using TMG v4.x just prior to his death. Of all those users, only one experienced any problems and that was when he upgraded his computer to a 64-bit machine. After asking me about that, he got his technician to install a copy of WinXP in a virtual machine and is happily still using his old version. Lee