Former TMG user with 13,000 in database. My notes also did not come over in prior versions of Family Historian. This latest version, they all came over.. I think, haven't looked at all of them. The notes showed up under facts.
Thank you for the suggestions regarding last person.. I also miss this feature.
Still working out the kinks, and getting used to the program.
* A potential Convert from TMG
Re: A potential Convert from TMG
That was the big winning point for me.
Where most all the other options use proprietary databases, several of which are based on extinct engines (TMGW, and Legacy still), Family Historian's database *is* Gedcom. For better or worse, it's nice to already be in the "standard" format all other software will recognize. (Which is definitely not true in reverse.)
One argument I read was using Gedcom was inefficient, that you have to "save" your changes. Auto-save makes that a non-issue. (Except when I make a change and immediately shut down the program, only then am I prompted to save. Okay, click "save.")
I've heard it argued working on the Gedcom direct is slow. I have a database of thirty thousand, with thousands of sources and media objects, and there is no hesitancy. (I don't need it to work faster than I can be aware of it working. I don't need the equivalent of 240 frames per second if I'm only going to perceive 30. Genealogy is for posterity. It's not a first person shooter.)
Where most all the other options use proprietary databases, several of which are based on extinct engines (TMGW, and Legacy still), Family Historian's database *is* Gedcom. For better or worse, it's nice to already be in the "standard" format all other software will recognize. (Which is definitely not true in reverse.)
One argument I read was using Gedcom was inefficient, that you have to "save" your changes. Auto-save makes that a non-issue. (Except when I make a change and immediately shut down the program, only then am I prompted to save. Okay, click "save.")
I've heard it argued working on the Gedcom direct is slow. I have a database of thirty thousand, with thousands of sources and media objects, and there is no hesitancy. (I don't need it to work faster than I can be aware of it working. I don't need the equivalent of 240 frames per second if I'm only going to perceive 30. Genealogy is for posterity. It's not a first person shooter.)
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 1961
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: A potential Convert from TMG
I suspect that would only be said by anyone who's not thought it through. I believe that FH doesn't work on the GEDCOM direct but loads it up into its own memory area, with its own structure - otherwise the LUA stuff for plug-ins wouldn't look anything like what it does. That being so, the only "slow" bit is the initial load and whatever subsequent loads are needed because I have my doubts that FH would load every bit and byte into memory to start with. Or maybe it does.stewartrb wrote:... I've heard it argued working on the Gedcom direct is slow. ...
Adrian
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 27079
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: A potential Convert from TMG
I think FH must load all the GEDCOM, because otherwise how would File > File Statistics work, etc.
Loading all the Media files may be delayed.
Loading all the Media files may be delayed.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 1961
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact: