efcharvet

Terry, based on your comments, "slowest" makes the most compressed file and "superfast" makes the least compressed file, which I had assumed would be true. It also appears file integrity is not an issue no matter which speed is selected, which I had hoped. The file size difference must be measurably significant for you to go through the effort or selecting "slowest" rather than using the "normal" default compression when you want to send a file, Terry. I will keep this in mind, although you didn't quantify the amount of benefit. Thanks for your replies, Earl

While I don't necessarily agree with all your other points, I'll not address them as they've been hashed over before. But I'm very surprised by this one. I've been using a single program for some 10 years and have never seen any need to use another. While I know some researchers find sufficient value in one feature or another to use multiple programs, I'd think the vast majority happily use whatever program they have chosen and no other. Of course many do migrate from one to another over the years as their needs change, just as I did, but I don't think that's what you meant. Hi Terry, I've been out of town and just returned, so couldn't follow-up until now.... Unlike you, I WISH I could keep everything in just TMG, but can't handle what I need a genealogy program to do. I consider TMG one of my main programs (with Heredis 11) because of the ways I can access the data files. Unfortunately, I must use others. 1.) I have families and places in Poland and a few in Russia with names that TMG can't handle, so I keep these branches in GenBox, which handles UNICODE. (I don't keep any of this family data in TMG anymore.) 1a.) GenBox is also my preferred "utility" for creating GEDCOM imports and exports without horrific data losses. GenBox has a useful import routine that specifically handle TMG's file format. (See: point 2.) 2.) I download and share my genealogical data online at both GeneaNet and Genealogie.com, the two largest French genealogical databases. If I download data in a TMG GEDCOM file into them, it is unreadable chaos. TMG concatenates the Memo field and Detail Place info and other data into the Place fields in its GEDCOMs, which is the cause for the biggest mess. -- To get the clean, useable files, I export TMG to GenBox then to Heredis 11, which works great. (I could use GenBox or Heredis directly, but the double-export actually works fastest for me.) 3.) I do most of my own work in Heredis 11, and nearly all of my colleagues in France use Heredis as well, where it is far-and-away the biggest seller although quite expensive. (It comes in Mac and Windows formats, too.) Heredis is a very solid program with lots of excellent, unique features for French users. It also is easier for me to move data from Heredis to TMG without data losses than the other way around. 4.) And yes, I also use Legacy. Frankly, so many people I consult with use it, especially Americans, I gave up trying to convert them to TMG. And, I understand why they prefer it, too. I know that no one reading this forum will believe it, but reporting and book reports are better with 130 fixed formats (although less flexible than TMG). The SourceWriter is superior to TMG's way of doing citations (learning, writing, & manipulating code), the data Search Tool is great, Timelines also just work better , too; neat little things like US County Verifier helps users avoid errors; the mapping integration with Yahoo maps and Distance Calculator is nice; it has a good File Comparison tool; ... and I like the design and functionality of the Notes Fields design and the To-Do List, far superior to TMG, I think. (When I have a "project", I prefer to start it in Legacy most of the time. Etc., etc., etc. --- In general, I think most people find Legacy is just friendlier. --- And now, it is a FamilySearch Certified product. I know this means nothing to readers here, but it does to new users in Salt Lake City and at other places I must work. To be completely honest here, none of my friends, family, or colleagues like TMG. Just one of my colleagues use it yet. -- I'm a hold-out because I've used TMG since Version 3, and have become so familiar with it and love some of its unique features. However, if The Master Genealogist did not have John Cardinal's absolutely outstanding TMG Utility tools, his wonderful Second Site product, and Terry's Tips, I don't think TMG is a competitive product, and I wouldn't continue to use it or recommend it. ---- This is just one guy's opinion. I don't expect anyone reading this forum to agree with me, which is fine.

EMTTT: It is very interesting to me that you see this in terms of a Win-Lose proposition. I don't understand why the prospect of adding competitive features that might increase TMG sales could cause you to even suggest that "TMG would lose functionality." I really don't understand your "perception" that efforts to add optional features to integrate with the one of the largest genealogical databases in the world at the world's largest genealogical library will make the product any less than it is now. I don't understand how you see that "Legacy [is] appearing to go down the same path as The (sic) Family Tree Maker"... which "became a turning point" for you to abandon their product. I also don't understand how the addition of any feature like a search option and post option "forces" you to do anything. - - - My statements are rhetorical. (I am not seeking a reponse. You have stated your case well enough to satisfy me. I just don't see it your way.) From the appearance of everyone's posts here, save one, users prefer that TMG goes its own way, and ignore competitors or any certification programs, which is certainly one way to do things. That's fine. TMG already has issues that make it non-competitive to many people: Date handling is poor. (For example: TMG cannot calculate exact ages of death (DMY) on reports. And, it cannot generate a report that shows everyone born on the same month and day, or anniversaries, or make a calendar of events, like Legacy.) TMG can't handle names in Polish or other non-Western European languages (the infamous UNICODE problem - which is not a problem with GenBox or RootsMagic.) And, for all of its pros and cons, GEDCOM is still the standard; the number one way to share data between users. TMG's implementation of the GEDCOM standard is so far from the norm that data loss during exports is greater than any other product I've experienced. (For all of their quirks, Legacy, RootsMagic, and GenBox have much less data loss during GEDCOM exports.) TMG's code could be altered without a loss of functionality so the magnitude of data loss would not be so great, but sharing of data with other programs is not one of TMG's priorities, and I am certain never will. ... These, among others.... Not addressing another issue like FamilySearch Certification that competitors have addressed does not make a difference according to those posting here, it seems. TMG's feature set is satisfactory enough, I suppose. No researcher can rely on just one genealogical program to answer all of his or her needs.

Thanks for your reply, Jim. I never use the More view either. It has potential, but it is nearly useless - without clicking back-and-forth to the Less view - as now designed. Earl

Jim, since you brought this up... I really don't understand what is being displayed in the « More » view when I choose « Abbreviation » from the Sorting drop down list. (Thanks in advance for an explanation!) What displays seems to be what is entered in « Title » field of the Source, even though a « Title » sort/display is an option in the drop-down list as well. This is a big problem because many of my Sources do not have any data entered into the « Title » field (per TMG's template models), so the « More » view results in numerous « (no title) » Sources. This makes the « More » view useless for identifying sources that need to be edited for me. The « More » view certainly does not display the same « Abbreviation » that appears under « Less » view (which displays correctly, as far as I'm concerned). I wish TMG would add the « Less » View style of « Abbreviation » as a drop-down list option in the « More » View drop-down list. This would end constant clicking back-and-forth between the two views to find a source. (This annoyance might already be on a Wish List or Bug List.) Regards, Earl

This has been on my Wish List for ages, but I simply never put it in writing until now... Currently, the « Place » column in the Master Event List concatenates data entered into the Addressee and Detail fields of the Tag with all of the other « Place » data entered into it, i.e. City, County, State, Country and probably the other fields entered in the Tag. (I, personally, seldom key data into the Postal, Phone, LatLong, or Temple fields, so I don't know if it does or does not.) I wish the data in the Addressee and Detail fields were treated as a separate sort fields (ideally separate) in the Master Event List so I could find what I'm looking for quicker, faster, and without so much work. I fill my Detail field, in particular, with all sorts of miscellaneous place info (like house numbers, street names, and cemeteries), and this ruins any opportunity to use the « Place » field in the Master Event List to sort and aggregate, say, Cities asociated with Tags because the first character entered into the Addressee or Detail fields of the Tag becomes the sort key for the entire « Place » sort field. If I want sort all of the people in my database born in, say, Lyon, I know I can run a report to get the info. But it would be so much easier if I could just do it in the Master Place List. »» Ideally, I would like to be able to sort ANY data field keyed into a Tag in the Master Event List... but I would be thrilled just to see Addressee and Detail fields made separate from the rest of the place fields. (Even combined, if no other option exists.) Here's throwing it out there.... Earl -

Thank you for reply. This is what I do currently. Yes, I know this. I did not iterate this information in my question because I knew people who replied would be informed and, frankly, I was too lazy to include it. I appreciate the effort to made to reply. Best regards, Earl

»» Thank you. I know how it works. »» Thank you for your reply. This is the response I expected. Regards, Earl

I am embarassed to ask this question because I've seen it pop-up many times over the years, but I can't find the topic via a query... What do I do to run a Report that shows the Person IDs connected to a Source #? Thanks much, Earl

Thanks Terry, Your reply showed me what I was (too obviously) doing wrong. I was running the correct List of Citations report, however, the error caused by using: Source Record Number = [?] (instead of Source Number). I appreciate your prompt response! Earl

This is a quick general follow-up... I always post my GEDCOMs at three sites. When I upload them to GeneaNet and RootsWeb, my updated data appears immediately. With Ancestry, however, I usually suffer a delay. My last upload in January took three full days to appear(!) The first time Ancestry started delaying GEDCOM uploads (early last year), I thought the problem was somehow on my end. Now, I realize it is just the way they run their ship, so I don't worry about it. A colleague tells me she has the same experience with her GEDCOM uploads there, too. Regards, Earl

TMG is not designed for Windows X64 and has not been tested at all with that OS. It may be that some of the report make use of 16 bit code that X64 cannot deal with. Phil Wholly Genes Tech Support - - - - - - This is a repost of earlier reply from Tech Support Earl [Please read my response below. Jim Byram]

This is going to sound like blasphemy on this TMG message board, but take a good look at Legacy Family Tree software. Most genealogy magazines and software evaluation sites list both products at the top of their lists, and each have their virtues. First, let me say I am a long-time TMG user, since version 3. I have a lot of time and work invested in the product and I know it pretty well and would never give it up. I first downloaded a trial version of Legacy, then bought it, originally as a "cheap" (about $30) add-on for things that TMG just can't do. However, the longer I have used it, the more I like it. It is a very sophisticated, well-supported product. Although I still consider TMG is my main database. I got Legacy first to handle some simple family requests: My extended family wanted a Birthday Book and Anniversary Book. Base product TMG does not parse dates by month and day, so these kinds of reports are impossible to create. (Legacy's newest version has date reminder flags built-in, which is neat.) Legacy has a very nice "To Do Reminder List" that is easy to maintain and appears on a Home page when you start the product. - - I use it all of the time and wish and wish TMG could do better that the extremely mediocre thing they've got. (TMG has a klug-y Research Log; data goes in - awkwardly - and it is a pain in the neck to get out and maintain. I hate it.) TMG has absolute, unmatched reporting flexibility. If you are doing genealogical research for hire, TMG is what you want. - - However, flexibility comes with a price. Most stock reports need to be customized "out-of-the-box" as it were - and to be completely honest, it is why many newer genealogists prefer inferior products like FamilyTreeMaker, and such to TMG. Legacy has many more standard reports - I think about 130 or so - that someone put more thought into than TMG's before customization. (Die-hard TMG users will disagree.) I also like the way images can be inserted into many stock Legacy's reports, as well. Legacy has some neat capabilities, for example, combining variant location spellings, and expanding and abbreviating place names not possible in TMG. Time Line Reports - real graphical time lines for people - is a very neat feature not in TMG. Legacy's web site creation tool is included in the base product. It does not match John Cardinal's Second Site, but his product is an add-on, not in base TMG. Legacy has a Research Guidance Tool that has no equivalent in TMG. Although I do not use it because I am so many years down the road and much of my research is French, friends of mine say they like it a lot. Legacy comes in a number of foreign language versions, and four English versions (Canada, Australia, U.S. and UK), but TMG, I think has more, including Deutsch and Espanol. (FYI: Legacy's "official release" foreign language versions are Dansk, Flaams/Nederlands, Nynork, and Bokmal. - - All others, including Deutsch and Espanol, are not official version. The French Legacy version release is not "official", but it is in pretty good shape. I use it with the U.S. version. The Brazilian Portuguese version is bare bones and not recommended. I can't comment on others.) I am only hitting on a few things that come to my head first. There are very good reasons to choose TMG. Even if it is your choice, I think Legacy Family Tree makes a nice add-on, even for simply exporting GEDCOMs and producing some alternative reporting and looking at your data another way.

Reading a few new user comments over the last few months - and thinking about my own TMG habits - has lead me to suggest this: I nearly always execute File > Maintenance > Optimize before I shut down. It has just become a (good) habit I've gotten into. From experience, I know that it keeps my TMG database from acting flaky due to the additions and changes I make nearly every time I work with it. Adding an option to the Preferences menu that would integrate File Optimize into the shut-down process when exiting TMG would be beneficial. (Perhaps it should be the default.) It would help a lot of users keep their TMG databases healthier and make strange database events less likely. - - It is already a built-in process in many competitive genealogical products. Food for thought. Earl

Wherever you want it. Earl

One of my personal, long-time pet peeves about TMG is that I have not been able to set-up TMG Abbreviations for France because the Abbreviation filed does not accept numbers! All of the departments in metropolitan France have two character numeric "abbreviation" codes. (The department of Corse and former department of Algeria have two character alpha-numeric codes, and the four overseas departments have three character numeric codes.) Note: These are not postal codes or INSEE codes. (A list of the department codes for France appears on English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departments_of_France ) Everyone in France knows these codes as well as Americans know their state abbreviations. All of the major French genealogical websites use them to sort data, including, of course, GeneaNet. I can't imagine that tweaking the TMG program so that Abbreviations field would accept alpha-numeric characters instead of alpha only would be a big deal. Please add this to the Wish List! Regards, Earl

Hi Terry, My comments about the exclusion markers not working with Repositories was rash. Sorry. It was true that they did not work in versions 3, 4, or 5 because I clearly remembering fiddling endlessly with the issue and calling support about it years ago. - - When something doesn't work, I create a work-around solution, then, the old habit doesn't die. I'm not going to test it in the current version. If you say it works now, I believe you. Best regards, Earl

Mike, For what its worth, I have learned to not fight TMG and take the easy route. I only enter info into the fields of the Repository Definition Screen that I want to print. Generally, this means entering info into the following fields only: Name - Other; City; and State (abbreviation only) - and Country, if applicable. I generally keep all info out of Addressee, Detail, County, Postal, Phone, & LatLong fields for the exact reasons you first mentioned. Note: This is one of the only places exclusion markers don't work; the hyphen and text will print. (I put the complete Repository info into the Memo field for personal reference, including things likes Fax numbers, website and e-mail addresses, contact names, etc.) Earl

The Compressed Pedigree report is one of the most useful reports in TMG for me. It fits a lot of needs. It does have one "fault:" The "line wrapping" feature when the "Truncate to Printer" option is unselected makes ugly reports. That is: Report > Compressed Pedigree > Options > Miscellaneous (tab) > Truncate to Printer (unselect) The line wraps to the left edge of the page, rather that indenting to the where the Name indents in the Compressed Pedigree chart. I would like to see this fixed sometime. (An example of a portion of a current report is attached.) Regards, Earl

Handling place names is such a big, painful issue. - - Frankly, I don't know if it is possible to get around entering Memo Tags into narrative reports such as this, "Châteaufort, Kingdom of Sardinia is now Motz, France" or "Plainview, Washington Territory is now Moscow, Idaho." And, that is OK by me. However, generating any kind of meaningful statistical reports that includes places in the sort variables are useless in TMG without using speadsheets. Robin, your suggestion attempts to addresses this. Unfortunately, I don't really understand how your "Primary Place Name" LINKS to the "Non-Primary Place Names" in steps a. and c. without identifying BOTH places per event. Is this handled in two screens in your step c.? (A "button" to designate "Primary" or "Non-Primary" place would not do it.) Please go into a little more detail. Thanks, Earl -

Most desktop computers are now sold with 20", 22", and 24" monitors. - - I primarily use TMG on a computer with a 20" Dell Ultrasharp 2007FWP widescreen monitor with the display set at 1680 px x 1050 px. - - 24" and 30" wide screen monitors are usually native at 1920 px x 1200 px. (I don't have to mention that 17" widescreen notebook computers are very popular, as well. I own one.) - - This gives users a lot more "real estate" than they had in the past. With these popular modern screens sizes, there isn't any reason the Tree View in TMG couldn't easily display a six generation tree. Ideally, users would be able to go to Preferences to choose to display the standard five generation Tree View if they have a small monitor, or a six generation Tree View if they have a modern, larger monitor. I, for one, would love to see TMG move ahead with the times and make this happen! Earl

Hmm, I guess Dell Canada and HP Canada don't make many on-line sales in Sooke... and that most "baby boomers" aren't buying 40" to 80" HDTVs there either! You might be surprised what you would find in homes across the straits in Vancouver! It's a different world! My best, Earl

I am certain that everyone reading this board can cite examples of wholesale place name changes. The issue is what you choose to enter into TMG in the StandardPlace fields, which can be sorted and used to generate various statistical reports and GedCom files versus what is entered into Memo and Citation Detail fields, which are not sortable and do not always export. What is really needed is a second set of place name fields, which I will call "StandardPlace Variation" fields, that link to each "StandardPlace" field (e.g., Detail, City, County, State, Country, to use the U.S. StandardPlace fields as an example), in the same way that Name Variation Tags link to a person's primary name. "StandardPlace Variation" fields might be better called "Primary StandardPlace Name" fields. I envision that a place name entered into an existing "StandardPlace" field would remain the primary sort name unless something is keyed-into the corresponding "StandardPlace Variation" field. This would allow users to "have their cake and eat it, too"; that is, the place name on the record being cited could be entered exactly as it was called at the time of the event (according to NGS standards) AND accurate statistical reports from TMG could be generated that would aggregate all of the various historical names for a given location. (I spend a month or more every year strictly working at various archives in France. Many of their indexes, compiled in spreadsheets, have one group of (sortable) columns that show what places were known as at the time of the historical event, and another set of (sortable) columns for the equivalent contemporary place names. This has been extremely useful in my research. I have always wished TMG could handle multiple place names as easily as these spreadsheets.) I could elaborate, but I will keep this post brief. Regards, Earl

Hi John, To handle your example, simply create a new Name-Var Tag for the name "John Doe," then make it the Primary. The name with titles and postnominals should only appear once. (Edit the Sentence for the Name-Var Tag for the long name to customize it, if desired.) Earl

Hi Terry, Crazy reply! (smile) I noticed you chose to edit out my sentence beginning with "Ideally, ..." (smile) You wrote: "Simply wouldn't work" sounds pretty dismissive to me! (smile) That's your preference! Some of us like TMG to fill a screen, particularly for the Detail View, to keep as much text visible as possible for each line without scrolling. We also click on the Windows Maximize and Minimize screen button to allow a full screen view or a multi-app view. (smile.) A six generation Tree View would be a great OPTION; and a nice selling point that could make TMG stand out a bit more in the genealogical software market. - - However, I am aware there are a lot of people with highly portable little notebook computers with 12" screens who would not appreciate seeing more information, as well as users like you. Perhaps you would prefer a three generation Tree View for your small TMG screen in your "several app" view! (smile!) Best regards, Earl