35 replies to this topic

[Romer]

I'm afraid that review site needs to correct some of the items in the list for which RM4 actually has capabilities. There seem to be some omissions.

In addition, features such as EE/etc-compatibility, shared events, etc. aren't used as criteria in terms of feature set, but yet might be high-priority for some users of genealogical software.

Furthermore, in the Editor Review section of the site for RM4, the images are still showing from RM3, so need to be updated. Some items, such as mapping, which is now part of the program, also need to be corrected. Other subjective points might be challenged.

Anyway, if I were RM, I'd be contacting the site to more accurately reflect the product.

[isis]

I'm trying to remember what Clint Eastwood said about opinions , anyway they are important and people do seek them out more and more in todays instant world.

That's why I was a little surprised and disappointed to see RM fall to #3 in the reviews below. I remember proudly posting this site before when RM3 was the latest offering and it was #1. People do seek out reviews before buying so if I were Bruce I would not be happy with that positioning, would be rushing to get RM4 complete and polished and be requesting that the review be done again. Maybe even an early jump to V5 with a free upgrade to all existing RM4 customers, after all a year has almost gone by since RM4 release.

http://genealogy-sof...tenreviews.com/

I think the main problem is the loss of the purge of deleted /merged records ie. the package & rebuild index feature RM3 had

I have an over 900,000 people database & RM4 sped through it with no delays , until i'd merged over 150 people & place names , then the manual duplicate merge option started running at a snails pace. I notice that the alternate names feature is still indexing merged individuals in all the areas of the database that the original person was in ie if you figure out that Elizabeth Walker, is aka Elizabeth Smith , as she got married & shes Elizabeth in another merged tree, or Eliza Walker (all individuals with same birth dates, spouse & parents.

After merging in all of the areas the name still appears as it was originally, although it is merged. That indexing must slow down the database, especially if you do that on 500 people. In RM3 it re-indexed it, getting rid of the old references in the list view. I can see all of the the alternative names in person edit view, which is sufficient. Alternative view, is an interesting feature but it needs to optionally be switched off in both in manual duplicate merge & the sidebar (not just in sidebar view options).

That said, All of the new features in RM4 work well even with a 900,000 database.

But bring back optimising database please, the programme is now to slow to work. I have no problems in RM3 with this large database even after 1,000's of merges because of the rebuild & purge feature. I'm exporting all of my database back to RM3 (which means I'll lose all of my colour coded families)so I can clean it out & work quicly, rather than wait 15 mins to do 1 duplicate merge in RM3

The problem with RM4 is not lack of processor speed on large databases its database purging otherwise it wouldnt have worked perfectly & fast for he 1st 3 days , when I'm only using a 2GB memory 2Ghz laptop. I've seen messages from people with 4gb memory & only 34,000 people whove had the slowdown on RM4 which is way smaller than my 900,000.

On a happy note every feature of RM4 works with a 900k people database , it just gets slower & slower , the more you merge people. I prefer RM4 to RM3 on features,
But RM3 beats RM4 on speed, so back to RM3 for me

Oh & backup is quicker on RM4 , (under a minute), vs RM3 around 5 mins (possibly because nothing much has changed in the RM4 after merges, I dont know). RM3 packing after merges took about 30 mins , but I didnt mind as it then sped up the programme, occasionally the programme closed down mid pack, but when you reopened the programme it continued repacking where it left off & then finished but the programme still worked fine , so it wasnt an error. If you tried to stop the programme during a repack in RM3 you could corrupt the database & lose it, so I always let it run & it was fine everytime.

Nearly happy RM4 customer

[Vyger]

On a happy note every feature of RM4 works with a 900k people database , it just gets slower & slower , the more you merge people. I prefer RM4 to RM3 on features,
But RM3 beats RM4 on speed, so back to RM3 for me

I have done the same as you although my database is nowhere near as large. I am only working with a 1.5k subset of information in RM4, although I love the features the speed is bothering.

As I have said elsewhere, RM4 has and continues to break media links, prefix Place Details notes and I believe I have noticed problems with source citations, all when merging or exporting and importing. That is why the larger protion of my database which contains mostly my reference material is still managed in RM3.

[MikeZ]

It is sad to see that RM4 still has so many issues (yes, I know it was a complete rewrite and a mistake IMO). As a beta tester I was initially hopeful for RM4, but quickly became disappointed with it's massive changes especially those that required reworking imported source & fact type entries - even if they were for the better (a subjective opinion). Some chose to slug through its conflicts, I did not.

While I don't actively campaign against RM4, I no longer recommend it to those who ask me about genealogical software. I do still recommend ver. 3.2.6 and hopefully that version is still available somewhere...

[isis]

I have done the same as you although my database is nowhere near as large. I am only working with a 1.5k subset of information in RM4, although I love the features the speed is bothering.

As I have said elsewhere, RM4 has and continues to break media links, prefix Place Details notes and I believe I have noticed problems with source citations, all when merging or exporting and importing. That is why the larger protion of my database which contains mostly my reference material is still managed in RM3.

I havent added media , photos etc so i havent tested that feature yet. I wont be testing that feature until the database purge is sorted as I dont want to lose data. Luckily so far I havent lost anything (except time ). As I have to now rexport to just a gedcom, to go back to RM3, I know I'd lose that kind of data. Its a shame RM3 cant import RM4 databases or backups (as not compatible), in the same way RM3 can . Its a shame because at the moment i'd only recommed RM3 to family members but I'm not sure if its still available. (In fact I've just checked & RM3 isnt available for download on either the rootsmagic.co.uk or .com. Shame for downgraders for whom the programme has become unusable & theres no fix.

[bienia]

That's why I was a little surprised and disappointed to see RM fall to #3 in the reviews below. I remember proudly posting this site before when RM3 was the latest offering and it was #1. People do seek out reviews before buying so if I were Bruce I would not be happy with that positioning, would be rushing to get RM4 complete and polished and be requesting that the review be done again. Maybe even an early jump to V5 with a free upgrade to all existing RM4 customers, after all a year has almost gone by since RM4 release.

http://genealogy-sof...tenreviews.com/

That site is very biased in their reviews and overly protective of their team of incompetent reviewers to the point of not allowing any posts that discuss the content of the reviews. There were six glaring errors through the lack of check marks, which indicated the reviewer only did a cursory glance at the product. The ones I noticed that they failed to check were, 1) Rating system for sources, 2) track medical conditions, 3) DNA results, 4) capture data from any website, 5) video tutorials, and 6) Printed material (although the copy may have been obtained before the book was available.) The "Capture data from any website" shows that this review was biased towards the methods used by FTM2010, excluding all others. Important (to the user) features like: Witness/shared role support, customizable fact sentences, a source template language that lets users create their own source templates, source templates that are based on the models in Evidence Explained, and Unicode support are excluded to obviously (at least to me) keep the two front runners in the forefront. Still, despite these shortcomings in the review, RM4 stood tall against the reviewers and was awarded an overall rating of 4 bars.

[Vyger]

While I don't actively campaign against RM4, I no longer recommend it to those who ask me about genealogical software. I do still recommend ver. 3.2.6 and hopefully that version is still available somewhere...

I believe RM4 or whatever is the way forward and do actively campaign to hopefully get those remaining issues resolved. I am now at a point where I can recommend RM4 to others as I believe we are virtually there as regards bug squishing and IMO RM4 is a step above RM3. However I am not saying that the RM team can sit back and start organizing cruises etc as there is still some way to go before I commit and start working my main database in RM4 and trusting it completely.

I do hope that day comes sooner rather than later and that we can finally start building on the feature set of a well equipped program and I also do wish Bruce would at least leak some information to the impatient hard core user base out there.

[isis]

I've exported my gedcom from RM4 back to RM3 & it speeds through now, & the packing feature works perfectly again

Its got to be a lack of purge /pack & delete function that slows RM4. RM4 is great but its a relatively simple problem to fix & put back in (surely). RM4 ran fast until I did 100's of merges. Its too slow now to continue using but RM3 is cool

Thanks

[Michael Jones]

I've used RM3 since 2006 and have recommended it countless times to others. I eagerly awaited the release of RM4 and enjoyed following the blog which showed features of the new version. I was also a beta tester for RM4. I have to admit I've been disappointed so far with RM4 and I have yet to switch my database over. Some issues for me are:

1) For most of us, I know that entering census facts for large families becomes quite tedious and had hoped that the long-requested (and often-requested) feature of being able to copy and paste facts with the source(s) linked to them would be incorporated in the new version. While the sharing of facts may be useful to some, it's not the same as copy.

2) The groups feature is one of the most interesting and innovative aspects of RM4, but the lack of "dynamic groups" is a minus.

3) Perhaps the place details feature should have been added later when its functionality were fully implemented.

Despite my frustrations, I'm optimistic that RM4 will be updated to remedy its shortcomings. I hope the blog will be updated with some communication regarding product development. While I know cruises and classes are part of the business, those of us who fall in the finicky super-user camp [no, I don't know ANYONE here who fits that description ] would, I'm sure, rather be updated on the progress with RM4's further development.

[Vyger]

Despite my frustrations, I'm optimistic that RM4 will be updated to remedy its shortcomings. I hope the blog will be updated with some communication regarding product development. While I know cruises and classes are part of the business, those of us who fall in the finicky super-user camp [no, I don't know ANYONE here who fits that description ] would, I'm sure, rather be updated on the progress with RM4's further development.

I agree storngly with all three of your points although I am investing time into Place Details in the belief that they will be further developed in the future.

A Blog has just been released and disappointingly there is no mention of a program update

[TomH]

A Blog has just been released and disappointingly there is no mention of a program update

I had an email about a Ticket today from Kim who says:

...resolved in the next update in a couple weeks.

The anticipation builds! I guess a week or so is needed after the Cruise to button down a few things.

[Vyger]

So what did you get confirmation of being resolved?????

[Romer]

Vyger, full reference here -- http://forums.rootsm...post__p__33572.

[Vyger]

Vyger, full reference here -- http://forums.rootsm...post__p__33572.

As someone who does not have access to New Family Search yet, my excitment has just died again.......

[Romer]

That certainly won't be the only fix or added feature! We'll all find out here in several more weeks.

[Vyger]

That certainly won't be the only fix or added feature! We'll all find out here in several more weeks.

I know and would like to think the same, however there was one update that was almost exclusively NFS based and this user could do without another one of those, at least for now

I would dearly love to see the remaining data issues resolved once and for all and some of those missing features, that seem obvious and have been well lobied on this board, finally added to the program