Jump to content
BoricuaSeeker

TMG Future Plans on Porting application to current programming technology

Recommended Posts

I am in the middle of evaluating different Genealogy programs. I have purchased TMG, RootsMagic and FTM 2008. My question for TMG is what are your future plans with this program? Will you be porting it to a current programming technology?

 

I like the detail very much in TMG but I think the interface is being limited by the technology you are using. I know that moving to another programming language is a big undertaking that could break this application if not done correctly but I think at this point you kind of have no choice since Visual Foxpro is dead and visually the other Genealogy programs are at least upto date.

 

This is an important issue to me and maybe to others also since our data is very valuable.

 

Thank you for any information you can provide to help me make a decision as to which program I will pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FoxPro is as far as I know only the method of communicating with the database and has really nothing to do with the visual interface of TMG. While I agree with you that FoxPro is dead and maybe WhollyGenes need to implement a different data access layer, I disagree that the interface is in any way limited. The interface is extremely customizable, but lack some of the XP/Vista/.NET elements that make programs look more visually pleasing, and that may be what you are referring to. But the inference that TMG is built on "old" technology because of an "older" looking interface, may be deceiving; because even ultramodern .NET applications are free to use whatever interface models they want without sacrificing power under the hood.

 

We have had this discussion many times, and I believe most people agree that TMG is not the most user-friendly or "pretty" application out there, but certainly has the power and flexibility to rival any genealogy application out there. If you are still choosing what application to ultimately settle down with, I would recommend that you spend some days (or weeks) to learn the program and I am confident that you will find that the features outweight the visual limitations.

 

Ken.

 

I am in the middle of evaluating different Genealogy programs. I have purchased TMG, RootsMagic and FTM 2008. My question for TMG is what are your future plans with this program? Will you be porting it to a current programming technology?

 

I like the detail very much in TMG but I think the interface is being limited by the technology you are using. I know that moving to another programming language is a big undertaking that could break this application if not done correctly but I think at this point you kind of have no choice since Visual Foxpro is dead and visually the other Genealogy programs are at least upto date.

 

This is an important issue to me and maybe to others also since our data is very valuable.

 

Thank you for any information you can provide to help me make a decision as to which program I will pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, elevator.

 

Yes, the subject of visual appeal has come up several times, but nobody seems to be able to define what they want to see. I've asked for examples, either here or on the TMG list, but have not gotten an answer. IMHO, just because it doesn't look or maybe feel like a MS product doesn't make it a lesser product. The TMG interface is so customizable that many of us are running something totally different than the next person, than the next person, etc. -- as evidenced by another thread, showing pages of customizations, on this site.

 

BoricuaSeeker, please take some time with TMG. Poke around, play with it, input some data that seems to make sense to you, get a feel for it. Then run some filters, make some reports, feel its raw power all at your fingertips. I think you will enjoy what you find. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Well said, elevator.<br /><br />Yes, the subject of visual appeal has come up several times, but nobody seems to be able to define what they want to see. I've asked for examples, either here or on the TMG list, but have not gotten an answer. IMHO, just because it doesn't look or maybe feel like a MS product doesn't make it a lesser product. The TMG interface is so customizable that many of us are running something totally different than the next person, than the next person, etc. -- as evidenced by another thread, showing pages of customizations, on this site.<br /><br />BoricuaSeeker, please take some time with TMG. Poke around, play with it, input some data that seems to make sense to you, get a feel for it. Then run some filters, make some reports, feel its raw power all at your fingertips. I think you will enjoy what you find. <img src="style_emoticons/default/thumbsupsmileyanim.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumbsup:" border="0" alt="thumbsupsmileyanim.gif" /><br />
<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.

Edited by BoricuaSeeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to stress again that FoxPro is only the data access layer (the back end) and has nothing to do with the visual interface of the program (the front end). I think this is an important distinction to see: we can have an ultramodern program that relies on FoxPro (or Jet for that matter) as it's data provider. If you do programming in .NET you will see that there are numerous data providers such as Jet, ODBC, ADO, RDO, SQL Server, Oracle, etc. The use of ANY of these data access technologies does not in any way limit the interface. Just because FoxPro is used for data access, does not mean that the front-end needs to be programmed in FoxPro also. In fact, as far as I know, TMG itself is a C++ program (developers correct me please). Also FoxPro will be supported by all operating systems released by MS until 2015, so WhollyGenes still have a few years to migrate to a different RMDBS.

 

What I like about the TMG interface is the freedom that you have. Most genalogy software have predefined screens, but TMG let you choose from a large number of interface elements and "build" your interface from scratch showing the features you use a lot and hide the ones that you don't use.

 

So I disagree with you that the interface is old and outdated. It could use a facelift, but that's really all it would accomplish; a prettier interface would not add any functionality to the interface; just make it look better. That said; I DO agree that a change in database access layer is required at some point, and there are many discussions talking about just that.

 

Ken.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />Well said, elevator.<br /><br />Yes, the subject of visual appeal has come up several times, but nobody seems to be able to define what they want to see. I've asked for examples, either here or on the TMG list, but have not gotten an answer. IMHO, just because it doesn't look or maybe feel like a MS product doesn't make it a lesser product. The TMG interface is so customizable that many of us are running something totally different than the next person, than the next person, etc. -- as evidenced by another thread, showing pages of customizations, on this site.<br /><br />BoricuaSeeker, please take some time with TMG. Poke around, play with it, input some data that seems to make sense to you, get a feel for it. Then run some filters, make some reports, feel its raw power all at your fingertips. I think you will enjoy what you find. <img src="style_emoticons/default/thumbsupsmileyanim.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumbsup:" border="0" alt="thumbsupsmileyanim.gif" /><br />
<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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

TMG7 runs fine on the x64 platforms except for two well-defined issues.

 

1) The word processing library contains some 16-bit code.

2) There is apparently an issue with the PDF driver (which I'm guessing is the result of it not being a signed driver but still haven't confirmed that).

 

Neither issue requires "a new technology" to resolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I have not stepped on anyones toes. I see that this conversation is heading in different directions.

 

I believe that TMG is programmed in VFP because of some of the files in the folders. You have .fpw's which are foxpro config files which foxpro apps need, .app's files which are foxpro applications, .vct's which are foxpro class libraries etc... So I don't think that foxpro is just the backend. Also there is that little status window that pops up in the top right hand corner like when you change the layout of your screen letting you know that the layout has changed, that is typical Foxpro since dos foxpro would let you know how long a query took.

 

The backend being Foxpro does not bother me because data can easily be moved to another backend and the frontend can connect with it seemlessly, UNLESS the frontend is Foxpro. Foxpro is quirky and clunky when connecting with lets say SQL server. Queries need to be modified and possibly placed on the SQL server.... but that is another conversation.

 

I also do not think that Wholly Genes coming out and stating "We have plans to within 3, 4, 5 yrs switch our technology to a .Net or Gnu C++ or Java environment with the backend being SQL server express or Jet or MySQL... and we will be taking our time doing this so that NO functionality is lost from the current product and make it prettier/easier to use" is going to tell the competition anything BUT will let the customers know that the company is on top of things and cares about the new comers like me who do care about what technology my applications are using. I work in IT so these things really matter to me and others who do not work in IT.

 

I like TMG a lot so far, it is powerful and very very detailed oriented but I also would like to know where it is going because the technology it is riding on is dead even though standard support for Foxpro is until 2010 and extended support will be until 2015 Foxpro will not be further developed and will never be fully .Net or WPF compliant. With Microsoft stating that there will not be a VFP 10 and that standard support will end in 2010 they are pretty much saying GET OFF OF THIS PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE/Database.

 

Now all I want to know is What is the future of TMG technology wise not what it is now because I would hate to see myself investing time and energy and seeing that in 2 yrs other genealogy software application's are able to catch up and pass TMG because they were written on a better platform. Can a developer for TMG just let his customers know what are some of the plans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very unlikely that Wholly Genes will reveal much about their future plans with regards to technical implementation details. Even with that information, you could never know whether or not other products will catch up with TMG in 2 years time, and you'd have to know more than the technical details. FTM, for example, is not aiming at the same market as TMG, and it's unlikely they will ever add some of the professional-grade features that are in TMG now. That's not to say FTM is not a good tool; it's just aimed at a very broad market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have really no idea as to what the underlying programming language is for TMG, but I am convinced that IF it is VFP, WhollyGenes realises that, and is working to port whatever code needs to be ported. Point is; the program as it is now works better than any other genealogy program I have tried, and that was really the selling point for me. I don't choose my genealogy program based on which one "looks" the best, but rather the one that suits my needs. If at some point in the future ANOTHER program comes along that is better I will just switch. I am sure WhollyGenes realises this and will not leave it's customers out in the cold in 2010 or 2015 when VFP becomes obsolete.

 

Ken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Foxpro is hardly dead - it seems to work quite well for TMG. In fact, Foxpro under Win 3.1 is not dead, in that it still supports UFT under Vista. Just because the vendor is not making further enhancements does not mean it is not a very useful tool.

 

One powerful feature, in my opinion, in both TMG and UFT is the ability to link many individuals to the same event record. If you have many people involved in the same event, you don't have to duplicate the event for each. Simply assign each to a role in the event/tag. It is such an easy way to fill out the chronology of a person's life. It also allows a more powerful method of navigating through your people.

 

It seems such a logical concept, once you have used it for a while, and I don't see why it has not been taken up by other vendors. But I guess most genealogists don't miss what they have not tried.

 

Pierce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>> One powerful feature, in my opinion, in both TMG and UFT is the ability to link many individuals to the same event record. If you have many people involved in the same event, you don't have to duplicate the event for each. Simply assign each to a role in the event/tag. <<<

 

Does this work in TMG? What is the best way to assign, say, a residence tag to four or five people? I think I may be missing something important!

 

 

formerprof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this work in TMG? What is the best way to assign, say, a residence tag to four or five people? I think I may be missing something important!

Enter one or two of them as Principals, then enter as many others as you like as Witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this work in TMG? What is the best way to assign, say, a residence tag to four or five people? I think I may be missing something important!

Enter one or two of them as Principals, then enter as many others as you like as Witnesses.

 

 

Aha! Many thanks, Terry -- all good wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this work in TMG? What is the best way to assign, say, a residence tag to four or five people? I think I may be missing something important!

Enter one or two of them as Principals, then enter as many others as you like as Witnesses.

Terry didn't mention the concept of "roles" that Wholly Genes added to TMG to entice UFT users to convert - and may did.

 

TMG originally had Principal roles (maximum of 2 per event tag) and Witness roles, which could be anyone else you wanted to associate with that tag. An obvious example is a birth tag, where the "child" was the Principal and the parents were both Witnesses. For a marriage tag, the bride and groom were the 2 Principals and you could link all the attendants, etc. as Witnesses. A Witness does not have to actually "witness" the event. For example, for a Probate tag, you could link all the beneficiaries, even those who had died before the Deceased died.

 

Roles allow you to identify what part a person played in the event, such as Best Man, Maid of Honour, attendants, flowergirl, minister, etc. You can define a "role sentence" for each role, which puts into English (or whatever language you can use) what part they played in the event.

 

The main Person view shows all the event tags that individual has been linked to, as well as the relationship of the Person to the "principal" for each tag. This gives a sort of time-line for the person's life. You can open these tags to find out the details of the event as well as who else are associated with the event. You can then jump to any of those individuals. All this when you link each of the "witnesses" to the main tag. Unlike other genealogy database programs, you don't have to define a separate "event" record for each person at the event.

 

I found having multiple persons linked to an event in UFT to be a powerful feature, and I am glad Wholly Genes added the roles, to provide most of the UFT event structure to TMG.

 

Pierce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×