Roy_Delos_Reyes

I personally want TMG to stay as far away as possible from intergrating with Ancestry... unless Bob takes over the programming and Quality Control departments at Ancestry! I use Ancestry a lot but always manually key in whatever I find there- I'd hate to think of a feature that would feed into TMG the Ancestry data like their member trees do {SHUDDER!}

The only program I've ever worked with that did something like this was in a medical lab I worked for... and the cost ran into the mid six figures!

Eileen, I think you'll find that TMG's policy is not to comment on the exact timing of any particular feature or update. You might, depending on the size of your database, consider using FTM16 and add the changes from 2008/2009 to your FTM16 and then do a direct import from 16.

Ahem... the way some people use tags and color they'd need a video card with 64 GIG of video memory! *GRIN*

This usually happens when trying to backup to an external device. Try backing up to your main Drive and then copying the backup file to the external device.

What I did was to give the grandparents another child using the given names of the other children (Joe-mary-robert-ernst-polly) and then made that person the parent of the "grandchild". Granted- it looks strange but with a note in the memo it pretty well makes things clear.

Believe me- it is way more difficult, plus the fact that it would no longer be an Individual Detail Report. I'd set up a dummy person for each family I wanted such a report on (say "xxxx Family Chronline") and then make that dummy person a witness to each event in each family member's life. You could then run a report on that dummy person and have pretty much what you want.

The non-custom "style" under options will answer my first question (after looking a little harder). But, is there still a way to do more than one ancestral generation for the siblings spouses? Marlyn, I don't think there is an easy way to do it automatically but with hardwiring of either the marriage sentence or a custom tag it probably can be done. I'm assuming you want something like: "On March 4, 1859, in the villiage chapel of Much Sodding on the Marsh, Middleshire, England; he marriaed Polly Purebody daughter of Sir Arthur Purebody (who was himself the son of Lord James Purebody and Millicent Ravaged) and Lady Hycianth Buckette (who was herself the daughter of The Duke of Blunderforth and Vicountess Knoital)." I'm sure it can be done... but neither easily nor quickly I'm afraid.

Your best bet woulld be to see what format your publisher requires...assuming, of course, that your have selected a publisher. Some will accept Word files, others may require a PDF file.

One either has to assume the children are the children of that wife or assume that they are from some other female or females. Lacking any indication that the children are not from that wife I'd link them to that wife and note that there is a possibility that such may not be the case but no evidence, at this point in time, is available to make a solid determination.

Iquit paying attention to the last Edited Date some time ago. I made a tag Logedit with the sentence [DD][M]. Then in the memo I just enter exactly what I updated. Since I'm usualy working with deceased people it places the tag at the bottom of the Detail window so I can always see what my last entry was on that person. Works a treat.

Of course there are creative thinkers among us... Bob Velke to name just one. Do you really think Bob hasn't been aware of this all along- and has made plans accordingly? TMG rarely comments on future developments and yet has managed to stay at the top of the heap for over a decade against some very well funded competition. Just look at that competition; with each release they try to get closer to what TMG already is. I trusted Bob and TMG with my data 10 years ago or more, I trust them with it today, and I'll trust them to meet my future needs until they show me that they can't meet them.

I think when Jim and I were importing the Stobie. GED sometime last year it ran to 466,862. Using TMG 4 with 512MB ram wasn't fun but it *was* interesting! *grin*

Yep... but then it *is* only eye-candy <GRIN> I'll take function over form ever time.

<br /><br /><br /> You guys are correct that the visual appeal is not there. I can see the power in the programming and the attention to detail is great but I have to wonder if this application will be around in 5 years if they do not get off the current technology. I program on the side in .Net and I use to program in FoxPro for Dos and VFP in the early 90's and foxpro was doomed as soon as Microsoft bought it, all the wanted was the patented Rushmore query ability to stick it into Microsoft Access. The writing was on the wall for VFP. Now the current technology like C# or VB.Net is much easier to program in because of the updated Framework 3.0 and 3.5, especially if you use SQL server on the backend. I guess my issue is that FoxPro is dead, the interface to TMG is suffering because it is on Foxpro. With Foxpro TMG will never get better looking, never get easier to use because the language is lacking. TMG is powerful and the company has done an incredible job with Foxpro but Foxpro is dead, and the interface looks like stuff written in the early 90's. Within 5 years Foxpro will probably not run on the OS that will be out in 5 years. Just like many Windows 98 programs do not run on XP or Vista. I like the interface in RootsMagic and FTM 2008. FTM 2008 is lacking the detail and power that TMG and RootsMagic has but I imagine in time it will get added since FTM 2008 is really a 1.0 release because it is a total rewrite. RootsMagic is written in C++ I believe I read somewhere, which never gets outdated, very portable to any C++ compiler with some work. If they use the example of FTM 2008 for tree view and web searching and clipping, and use the intuitiveness of RootsMagic and keep all the detail and power of TMG this program will be sitting pretty for years to come. They need to add some nice web clipping and merging capability like FTM 2008, With FTM you can merge data into a current person in your tree, it automatically creates the sources and citations which you can modify. Unfortunately FTM's data entry and display of a person's data is ugly. With our data being so valuable I just want to know from the developer's what are the future plans, I cannot believe that they are not currently planning something. I'm certain Bob and company have a development plan for TMG. I am also certain that they will NOT comment at this time on exactly those plans are; after all, why let the competition know what you plan to do. You'll note that TMG-7 hasn't been certified to run on win64 as of yet. For all we know the 64 bit TMG may well be going to be based on a new technology (and yes, Bob has indicated that at some point in the future we can probably expect a 64 bit TMG).

You replied: But this is exactly what it did do although it was not an existing data set within TMG. I started a new project with no data. I imported a Gedcom that, as required by Gedcom, already had ID numbers. On import, TMG changed all of the ID numbers except for ID1 exactly as you described earlier: Thus it changed ID numbers with no warning. I can no longer export my TMG database with the same ID numbers that were in the original Gedcom. As I have stated earlier, TMG should not automatically (without warning) change ID numbers or change any Gedcom tag data. Because it changed INDI numbers on import, it also changed FAM numbers etc etc. TMG should offer, maybe only on new projects, that imported ID numbers not be changed. As I said earlier, changing the ID numbers on 'new' databases only increases the work needing to be done by TMG. It would be much easier just to import the ID numbers as contained in the Gedcom. May be this is one of the reasons that it took nearly 15 minutes to create the database!! I think TMG should add the ability to retain ID numbers when importing any data to establish a new project. I would like to pass this on as an enhancement request. Where should I do this? Thanks again for your help. I'm not quite sure how keeping the same ID numbers upon importing would work. Consider the following: I have Gedcom A with 1000 people and import it to a data set. I then import Gedcom B which also has 1000 people but which has no dupliicates of Gedcom A into a data set. I then want to merge the two datasets into a single project. I would wind up with two people with ID #1, #2, etc. What was meant about TMG not changing ID numbers was that it won't change ID numbers after importing into TMG without warning the user.

Unfortunately, since Microsoft hasn't seen fit to add Unicode support to Foxpro yet, TMG still can't add Unicode support.

To go from TMG 4.0d to TMG 7 you need to IMPORT not restore the 4.06 data to v7. No need to foll with gedcom at all.

How interesting! I was just thinking about doing the same thing except I'd be starting from scratch so no need for later merges, etc. I was wondering just how much cleanup would be needed on the sources that are gedcomed into TMG7. I was thinking about using it on several unsourced gedcoms I've gotten over the years and never really had time to look into. Most are for collateral lines that aren't really needed in my main file but would be nice to have.

Virginia, I'm curious as to what type of important announcements would come through the Message Manager that wouldn't appear on either this forum or on the TMG-L list? Any Idea?

Not if what it takes to makes them happy conflicts with certain standards held by the developers. An example of this is John Cardinal's Utility which allows users to perform certain functions which will never be included in TMG itself simply because those functions allow users to violate certain principles of Bob Velke's conception of data integrity. I'd also take the word of Bob's crew about anything concerning the gedcom standard over *anyone* connceted with Ancestry/Roostweb.

The only way to accomplish what you want is for genealogy programs to divorce the meanings of bio-father and/or bio-mother and the word parent. Parent should NOT mean immediate genealogical ancestor of either sex. The term parent should be sexless and no gender be required of that "role". This means, for all practical purposes, changing the english language... anyone up to giving ity a try?

Bob said something interesting in last night's chat re the wishlist... Seems that the betatesters are his first filter for wishlist items (or words to that effect). Check the transcript for his exact words as I may have misunderstood him.

Is it just a coincidence that if you take 2583 (your number of sources) and remove the 3 from the end and put it in front you have 3258 as mentioned in the error message? Hmmmmm...... I'm not well versed in TMG but that seems a bit strange to me.

Jim, Even your "slow" machine is faster than mine. On mine the import into v4.0d took 59 hrs. 15 min, 11 sec. (although I'm very surprised at rather quick response time when changing views. I've not yet had the courage to try to add something<g>)