AndyH3rd

I'm curious as to what real difference it makes? If you want it held until it is ready why should you even be worried about how long that will take? Bob and company could simply announce "Version 8 will ship no later than Dec 2011 if all thing go as planned". That, at least, would tend to shut people up about all this "when, when, when" business. Or they could announce that 1 month will be added to whatever projected release date they may presently have every time someone asks the "When" question!

Rougly how long is sooner... Only Bob Velke can answer that question, and believe me- he won't. WG never makes announcements about possible, probabale, or planned release dates.

Roots IV is a *very* old program- not the same as Rootsmagic at all.

I think what everyone really wants to know, but hasn't asked in so many words is this: Has WG already reached a decision that, at some point in time, there will be a future version of TMG that is not written in VFP? No need for timetable, details, or even what it will be written in - just an assurance that it will be written.

Have you recalculated the relationships since adding the "no relationship" family ? It depends on which side you add a person frm sometimes and it doesn't re-calculate after every person you add

Then you weren't around for the last time such information was given out- yes, it was done once before and the TMG user got on TMG's case in a *very* big way. After that, I'm surprised they even mention working on a new release until it is actually ready for release.

Of course - and to my shame I didn't recollect that I named it WG_port myself. Of course nothing useful showed up when I googled "WG_port." If I erase the file it remains erased until I write a .PDF from TMG. Many thanks, formerprof PS -- I'm getting tired of "formerprof," but it's a bit hard to envision having to sign myself "Robert, formerly formerprof." How about... Robert (formerprof)

If you have a need to attach screenshots just use The Master Genealogist Message Board at Ancestry http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.software...alogist/mb.ashx and then post a link to it here.

I've found the easiest way is to just run a kinship report and then delete all the "Spouses of ..."

Michael- I know.

I was unaware that TMG had announced that future products would be based on SQL Server Express - can you provide a link to the announcement?

I exchange data with the genealogical community at large all the time and never use GEDCOM. Images, Text files, document files, audio files, etc. can all be used. When I get a request for a GEDCOM I simply explain that the software I use has many features that do not transfer to GEDCOM and that I therefore won't provide them. ALL information can be exchanged in some other format than GEDCOM. I also explain that i'd rather not recieve info in GEDCOM format. If my information is valuable then the format thereof shouldn't matter except to those "namegatherers" who are a blight on the community and them I can do without anyway. Just my .02 cents.

In my opinion we should be encouraging everyone to use software that promotes Genbridge and doing everything we can to discourasge the use of software using GEDCOMS. The GEDCOM spec has long since passed its use by date and we already know it won't ever be updated. Quite frankly it is legacy support for gedcom that is really holding back genealogical software development. Let it die a dignified death- letting it linger on life support is, in the long run, not helpful to no one.

1). Do you have any idea of what you are asking for? You say "all the places out there". That would be a database that included every known name during any time period for each place on earth. There is not now, and probably never will be, such a database. Even if there were such a database to have it consulted in real time as you type a place it would put such a performance hit on the system (and the system better be a supercomputer to even think about running such an application) as to make it almost totally useless. 2). I found out a long time ago the best way to keep the Master Place List clean is to not import locations into it. I rarely import anything into my database but on the handful of Gedcoms I've imported over the years I always strip location beforehand. I've found it takes less time to re-add them than to clean them up later.

Considering that it means an entire re-write of certain .dll libraries without using any 16 bit code- yes.

I give them "Unnamed" as a given name and a note that they died before being named, I agree with you that they are a different class than "unknown". Unknown might or might not have been named but you know for a fact that these actually had no name.

Once upon a time there was a program Excel2Ged- I don't know how well it worked, if at all. I doubt is has been upgraded in years. If you can get it into csv format you could add columns to add teh gedcom coding for that individual and them mailmerge to created a gedcom... but it would be of unlinked individuals. You would then have to fgo into TMG and link everyone. Either way is a lot of work but I'd go for manuel entry so I could add sources, etc. at the same time.

Jared, Over the years I've tried pretty much all the major packages. Way back when (sometime around version 3.5) it became clear to me that TMG was head and shoulders above anything else available for what I wanted to do. I chose it then and would make the same choice today. I try to keep up with what the other packages do, and some do have some nice features, but overall I can't find a more flexible or more customizable package than TMG. TMG was designed from the start as a program to perform functions that allow for data analysis- not just data entery. Heck, when it first came out you could look at your data and analyse it but couldn't even print reports. All that said- I'll admit I am biased.

They won't appear in the 5th generation unless you actually show them as parents of children since only those having offspring are carried forward in the journal report. I usually enter one child named "(# of Children) Surname" and then give that child a child named "(# of Grandchildren) Surname".

How, if TMG requires entries to the registry (and it does), can it even be considered?

Cliff, My biggest beef with Ancestry, well- one of anyway, is allowing copying from one online tree to another. It just leads to garbage in most cases. As to your particular example... I have an Online Member Tree that is composed of unlinked individuals. I find the appropriate sources and attach them then from time to time download a gedcom of the tree and make it a new project in TMG then merge that project into my main TMG file. Being unlinked to anyone else that allows me to merge any person and their sources without the posibility of othe member of the family duplicated. After I get that done them I return to my online tree and delete any person I have downloaded and merged into my main file so the next time I download a gedcom of the online tree it won't contain someone already in my main TMG file.

Errr... to my mind the more removed TMG is from anything even remotely resembling anything on Ancestry the better off TMG wil be in the long run. Ancestry promotes and enables bad genealogical practices - the very opposite of TMG. Long may they never meet!

If you won't be upgrading until everything in your post #48 is available then I'm willing to bet that 6.12 is the last version of TMG that you'll be using as I just don't believe that they will ever be available.

My cousin and I simplified things somewhat. We each just run an individual narrative each night on anyone we edited/added that day and e-mail that to the other then enter the received data into our own systems. No backup/restore to mess with.