jim.orrell

I don't know if you've fixed this, but this recent link should answer it: Report Generation Error, Can't Generate .RTF or .DOC reports - 27 Mar 2009 http://www.whollygenes.com/forums201/index...p;hl=jim.orrell also this Rootsweb link has fuller detail: [TMG] Reports not printing to *.RTF *.DOC and most file types - 16bit program problem - 28 May 2008 http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/r...8-05/1211974337 If this is your problem, as well as fixing the registry, YOU MAY ALSO NEED TO RE-INSTALL TMG. Jim Orrell

As much as I love Ancestry.com the new re-write of their Family Trees (My Trees) has lost much from the original which used to mirror the Rootsweb Family Trees and was simple and worked well for sharing. - As mentioned above, it is impossible to update a database, you can only create a new one. In consequence any photos etc that you link are lost, any invitations to your tree have to be re-invited. It seems to be geared up for people who use it as their primary input location, and if you do that, it works OK. Being cynical it seems to be a way to lock you into Ancestry.com and their "added value" products. Fortunately the Rootsweb Trees, ironically from then same "stable" are still there and do not have this problem, although I haven't noticed any development here. - Also, I spotted a glaring Privacy loophole that they seem in no rush to fix. Briefly: A living person has no birth date or an invalid birth date, no death date or an invalid death date. With Privacy on, they cannot be found by the normal search, but if their ancestor/spouse is deceased and found, the living person's details are fully viewable. This often affects distant spouses for whom you don't know the details. Or more ironically those people you leave birth details off, to keep their details more private. Fortunately the Rootsweb Trees do not have this problem. Their "Algorithms" spot these obvious situations. I find the best online tree is Rootsweb. I also use Genes Reunited (UK) as this is a good site for the less computer literate to use (although I find the site slow and "pedantic"). Despite my comments, I also use Ancestry trees as another "window" but ensure my GEDCOM does not include any living or sensitive people (i.e. those with sensitive descendants!) and upload a new tree every now and then. While Rootsweb trees seem to take TMG output without any trouble (except witnesses), the other 2 have problems with memos/notes. I have written to them both pointing out that as TMG is a leading product, I was surprised they did not support their notes. "They were looking into it". Jim Orrell

I noticed this very annoying problem, also, there is very little detail for the spouse. Why can the Journal report give the detail (plus more in Miscellaneous Options) but not the Descent Indented Narrative, a very simple yet annoying TMG inconsistency. This is my limited solution before regrettably using the Journal report instead. <> Add the parents (PAR) to your sentence for Birth e.g. [iTAL:]BORN[:ITAL] <[D]> <[sUB:]([PAR])[:SUB]> <[L]> <[M]> This gives e.g. (son of Thomas BIRKETT and Ellen DAWBER) It’s a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut and adds a lot of text, but it shows the parents, no matter where the individual is listed. <> I also add PARO to the marriage tag which adds a little spouse information. I also use this in the Journal. e.g: [iTAL:]MARRIED [PO][:ITAL] <(aged [AO])> <[D]> <[L]> [sUB:]<([PARO])>[:SUB]<[M]> Whilst FTM 2006 has a much inferior database to TMG, its equivalent Outline Descendant Tree has no problem putting children with the correct parent and also includes full spouse details. However I cannot find a way of including memo/notes detail in the FTM report. (N.B. as far as I can see FTM 2009 does not yet have a Descent Indented Narrative). Once again I feel TMG do not do justice to their database by "skimping" on report development. Jim Orrell

I had this same problem which I could not understand as one of the main advantages of PDF files are that in many cases they use much less space and great for emailing. After analysing the output in Adobe Acrobat, it transpired that most of the space was being used by embedded fonts. So I looked around at TMG's report settings. This example is for Descendancy Narrative, but I think it's the same whatever the report. <> In Report destination select Save to file type Acrobat (PDF) <> click on Properties <> you should notice a tick box, "Embed all fonts" set to off. You will notice a massive difference in space used. I suppose that theoretically you could have some font substitutions when viewed on some PCs, but as long as you keep to standard fonts there should not be a problem. Experiment. Whilst there is a section in the TMG help on PDF properties, I cannot find a reference to "Embed all fonts". As this seems to be the default, I imagine that many people are creating unnecessarily massive PDF files. These are the little niggles that are so easily fixed, yet can cause so much frustration. Hope that works for you. Jim Orrell

Sometime ago I had a problem printing word processor reports in Windows XP. I eventually traced the problem to letting Advanced Windowscare System Optimization set: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem\NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation current value as 1 This effectively stopped TMG running word processor reports as they used a 16 program. OK that problem fixed. Whilst I was researching that, I discovered that Windows VISTA would not run 16 bit programs, so it would not run word processor reports at all, and the only option seemed to be to write to PDF. I tracked this down in the forum for Jan 2008: "To be clear, the 'word processing' output that currently doesn't work includes output to Word, WordPerfect, RTF and HTML." Can anyone tell me if this has been fixed? I hope to get a new Laptop soon, and they all seem to come with Vista. Does this mean I will have to move from TMG if I want to produce a report to an RTF file? I run macros on most of my reports, so a PDF file is of little use.

That sounds better news. So: Either get 32-bit WinVista (with "effective" limit of 3GB memory) or wait for TMG to update and get 64 bit Vista and/or wait for the windows version after vista. Thanks

One of the problems of Descendant Charts is the large amount of wasted white space. The comments below are for LEFT to RIGHT charts, which I find the most efficient use of paper, but there is a similar problem on top to bottom. The more to the left of the page, the more wasted white space there is. Also, one way to get more generations on a page is to narrow the width of the boxes, indeed this can often lead to a more efficient use of paper. So, my suggestion is: Make the box dimensions variable for each generation. This would allow narrower boxes for the early generations with usually fewer people, (this allows them to expand down into the free space), and wider boxes for later generations (allowing them to be closer together and fit more down the page).

I've wrestled with this ever since I started genealogy and TMG. My answers: 1. Within TMG. as others have mentioned find all your "root people" (I created a ROOT tag to keep track of different branches). Then produce a chart (relevant depth) for each root person. Then cut/paste in VCF (make your page bigger). Very messy. I must try the "dummy parent", however this would not work if that person already has a parent and you only want to include part of their tree. 2. Create a GEDCOM, relevant lines of descent (collect in focus group) and parts (e.g. don't export all place parts if not needed). Import this to FTM (or GENBOX) and use the "All in one" tree. Also messy. I keep a master "empty" FTM dataset with my tree settings, fonts, items to include etc, then import the GEDCOM. I find this great to create an all in one tree of all my data, output to 1 page PDF and mail to others for PDF perusal (just magnify in adobe), its very efficient on space and esaily searchable. As far as I can see, FTM and GENBOX are the only products to do an all-in-one tree. Whilst FTM is nowhere as good a database as TMG, it also does a far far superior desendant chart which is efficient on paper, includes spouses, and spouses parents, much more useful as a working document. GENBOX seems very powerful and much "slicker" than TMG and I'm sure it will make strong competition if TMG neglect their reporting options. 3. Complain to whollygenes at the lack of this facility, and ask for an update. They should be able to do an "All in one" tree for say the focus group.

Whilst the people search and filter options in TMG are very powerful, they are a bit pedantic and very very slow if all you want is to look for a person by SURNAME and/or FORENAME (or parts of). 1. Is there any way of switching off the tedious "Filter Progress" window with its "I'm wasting my life away" countdown? 2. What is required is a simple hot key or button for a quick search that displays a box, you enter a surname (or part of) and/or forename (or part of) and the results are shown in Project Explorer or similar. E.g. "OTT TER" would find Peter Otter or Teresa Pott. I am sure this is not available at present (please tell me if it is), can anyone advise of the quickest way to find a single person. 3. While I am at it, another thing that slows down the finding of individuals is on the Project Explorer. If you drag the scroll bar with your mouse, it does not scroll the data at the same time, you have to wait until you remove your mouse, you could end up anywhere! You can only move it up and down by clicking in the scroll bar, you can't even use the page up/down keys. The EZSearch toolbar is very old hat and takes up desktop, surely the modern option for that would be to just press the key on the keyboard which would take you to the alphabetical position in the list. Are there faster ways of moving around the Project Explorer?

Thanks to all of you for your responses. I've used TMG for a while and never knew of the F2 followed by F2. I think I might use it more now. But its a pity: 1. It doesn't keep the previous search when you use it again. 2. That you have to key in the full Surname, xx. If you have a long surname that's a pain. I.e. if you abbreviate the surname before your comma it will not find it. As regards the "use a number of preset filters on the Project Explorer", I had thought of that as an option, but as your database gets bigger (only a 1000 names now) it is very slow, compounded by that awful "countdown" box which I can't find a way to get rid of!!! I think I might also try my query with the Rootsweb TMG message board. Thanks again, slightly less frustrated Jim P.S. It says I'm getting email notifications, but I've not seen any!