The sixth RM8 blog entry has been posted. http://blog.rootsmagic.com/
Excellent news, especially including the unblocking of the main screen when editing screens(!) are open.
Jump to content
There have been 52 items by robertjacobs0 (Search limited from 11-July 19)
I'm glad to learn that there will be words, and an option to abandon them and just show icons. However, my preference would be to bag the icons and just show text buttons. I hope it's not too late to offer this as an option. It should be a simple change.
I also hope it will be possible to show the icons/text horizontally at the top if the user so wishes.
Isn't this a little silly? RootsMagic is castigated if they release nothing and again if they release some but not all, and still again if they don't adhere to a "schedule" established by the pace of their releases. They can't win.
That said, I've believed for years that software companies are insufficiently transparent regarding their plans. RootsMagic isn't alone in being secretive. It seems to be a shibboleth in the industry that disclosure will give competitors an advantage. Since that's the case, there little's point in inveighing against the practice and even less point in criticizing RM8 for its failings before we've seen it.
I hope I'm not missing the point here, but doesn't the media album/tools allow one to rearrange the order of exhibits? There's no need to delete and reinstall an item. GedSite seems to pick the exhibits up in the order one has prescribed.
Would it be possible to authorize a willing enthusiast to filter and remove the spam?
It's not just that I abhor Facebook, it's a lot easier to read and follow technical discussions — and perhaps occasionally contribute — on the forum. And, as TomH has said, both images and the like/dislike feature can be authorized for the board.
I hope it isn't heresy to suggest that the best way to post your research on the web is to abandon Tree Share and use RootsMagic and GedSite together to put up the data in the form you prefer. Ancestry.com could still be used for research, of course. Ancestry Tree Share is rife with API problems, the necessity to bow to their formats, and constant repetitive web hints, many of which are duplicates, irrelevant, or just plain wrong.
It's only necessary to look at this forum's posts to see how much trouble Tree Share has caused and how much of your time and RM's time are wasted because of it.
I agree. I've thought -- going back to my TMG days -- that the distinction was artificial. It may have made more sense before Ancestry.com and other internet collections became the dominant research technique.
Similarly, while tracking repositories is suitable for identifying libraries, courthouses and the like, it doesn't really speak to the realities of internet research.
I think the idea is that one would have a "source" -- say a book -- and that subsequent citations of it would only involve typing in a page number.That is, it was supposed to be a time and effort saver. I fear that the source/citation bifurcation has mostly served to confuse thousands of people.
As I look at my own report footnotes I see that most of them can adequately guide researchers, but they are all higgledy-piggledy and inconsistent with one another.
I'd like to second this notion in the same spirit with which it was put forward. Silence and secrecy may be justified when a company is about to launch something that no one else has. But what would be wrong with:
We are rewriting the report formats
We hope to improve the search and indexing functions
We are establishing <[note]> for use in our sentence templates
None of those assertions can harm the company. Indeed, one could argue that user loyalty might be enhanced.
Finally, if RootsMagic isn't doing those things, it ought to.
Thanks, Keith. I'm having my semi-annual "abandon Microsoft" fit, and am thinking of limiting my Windows use to RM7 in a VM running under Linux. The project is probably an uneconomical use of time and effort, as I do have everything running very smoothly under Win10 Pro. If I go ahead I'll keep your advice in mind. Thanks again.
Thanks, mjashby & bscott26. I'm in the throes of moving to a new house and can't undertake the project for another month or so, but will try RM7 under WINE as soon as I get the chance. I notice that neither of you mention Ubuntu. When I do undertake the conversion is there a distribution which you think preferable?
Rooty, what evidence is there that "most mac users" have abandoned RM7? How can you know that? If you've abandoned RM7, why bother to post here at all? Trolling can hurt the company; that can hurt RootsMagic development, which ultimately hurts me.
FWIW, my opinion is that the development of most genealogy software has been substantially slowed by the rush to the cloud. Railing at RootsMagic won't accelerate the release of a native Mac version by one minute. I'm as impatient as you are, but I don't think that carping will help.
>>> I have seen more sunsets than are ahead for me. <<<
Likewise. RM8 — even if there were a few unsquashed bugs — can't come too soon for me.
I switched to RootsMagic when TMG support ended because I felt very strongly that when my children became responsible for maintaining the project that the availability of tech support would be important for them. I've never regretted the choice; the addition of John Cardinal's GedSite to my project has been an unexpected and welcome benefit. I'm hoping to have RM8 and GedSite working together smoothly before I hand over the reins.
When I don't know a woman's birth name I've found it useful to use her spouses surname surrounded by square brackets and to add "Mrs." in the prefix field. I also add an alt married name, using the husband's surname in the surname field. The bracketed names all sort together at the beginning of the RM index list whicxh is convenient for research purposes and the alt married name sorts alphabetically in the normal parts of the index.
This practice works very well with GedSite. See the index tab of my web site at https://genarchives....ns/up/index.htm.