Viewing LDS Ordinance info in Internet IGI

[Robert Burns]

"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

To convert a gedcom to a csv data base
listing all events for import into a one name study for example

Hugh W


Hugh,

Custodian does that doesn't it? I will have to check that now

Rob

[Hugh Watkins]

"Robert Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


To convert a gedcom to a csv data base
listing all events for import into a one name study for example

Hugh W


Hugh,

Custodian does that doesn't it? I will have to check that now

not really
I understand there is some incompatibility

Hugh W

[Autumn]

I would like a utility to keep track of census records, that I could record
the full record on, with the possibility of making a list of the census I
have done and have not done. Perhaps a generic page as well for the state
census which was taken in different years in different states.

[Steve Hayes]

On 17 Jan 2005 08:51:15 -0800, [email protected] (Phil Wright)
wrote:

Hi

I am a professional programmer with an interest in geneaology. I want
to spend time working on a utility/application that will be really
useful in the geneaology community and so am looking for ideas. The
utility/application will be free and will be a spare time activity
only.

So far I have noticed that none of the well known geneaology
applications has really top notch tree drawing capabilites. They are
ok but nothing special or particularly professional. Would a utility
that imported GEDCOM, PAF and produced professional pictures be of use
to people? Are there cool features that would make your life easier
that you would like to see?

There are lots of tree-drawing programs.

What is lacking is a decent event manager, which would record events and
people involved in them. It should be capable of importing people's details
from GEDCOM and other sources.

I've been using a flat-file text-database program for this, but there's too
much repeating information.

It needs to be separate from a lineage-linked genealogy program, because there
would be too many unrelated people in it ("Lloyd George knew my father, father
knew Lloyd George")

It should be able to produce the following reports (among others):

1. Events listed chronologically by place (useful for local history).

2. Events listed chronologically by participating person (useful for family
history, biography)

3. Events listed chronologically by family.

4. People listed by participation in defined series of events (family history,
biography, local history, crime investigations)


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Shelley]

"Phil Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Hi

I am a professional programmer with an interest in geneaology. I want
to spend time working on a utility/application that will be really
useful in the geneaology community and so am looking for ideas. The
utility/application will be free and will be a spare time activity
only.

So far I have noticed that none of the well known geneaology
applications has really top notch tree drawing capabilites. They are
ok but nothing special or particularly professional. Would a utility
that imported GEDCOM, PAF and produced professional pictures be of use
to people? Are there cool features that would make your life easier
that you would like to see?

Any ideas/discussion welcome...
Phil Wright

I'd love to see a GEDCOM to shapefile (widely used mapping file type)
utility. There are plenty of free map viewers, country boundary shapefiles,
and gazeteers out there to do the rest with. I can point you at some of
those resources if you're interested.

The kind of thing I'd love to be able to do is choose a person and produce a
map of:
- Where their descendents were born, generation by generation. Now wouldn't
that be cool to see them spread out over the world over time?!
- Where their ancestors were born, generation by generation.
- Places for that person's life, perhaps joined by a line to show their
movements over time.
- Places where particular types of events occured.
- All sorts of other filters....whatever you can think of...

I've been hunting around and although there are genealogy packages out there
with some mapping capacity, I haven't seen anything that does quite what I
have in mind. If you were really keen you could create a whole mapping
package, but just the ability to filter GEDCOM data to my own specifications
and produce a shapefile for use elsewhere would have me jumping for joy.

Shelley

[Dale DePriest]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 08:51:15 -0800, [email protected] (Phil Wright)
wrote:


Hi

I am a professional programmer with an interest in geneaology. I want
to spend time working on a utility/application that will be really
useful in the geneaology community and so am looking for ideas. The
utility/application will be free and will be a spare time activity
only.

So far I have noticed that none of the well known geneaology
applications has really top notch tree drawing capabilites. They are
ok but nothing special or particularly professional. Would a utility
that imported GEDCOM, PAF and produced professional pictures be of use
to people? Are there cool features that would make your life easier
that you would like to see?


There are lots of tree-drawing programs.

What is lacking is a decent event manager, which would record events and
people involved in them. It should be capable of importing people's details
from GEDCOM and other sources.

I've been using a flat-file text-database program for this, but there's too
much repeating information.

It needs to be separate from a lineage-linked genealogy program, because there
would be too many unrelated people in it ("Lloyd George knew my father, father
knew Lloyd George")

It should be able to produce the following reports (among others):

1. Events listed chronologically by place (useful for local history).

2. Events listed chronologically by participating person (useful for family
history, biography)

3. Events listed chronologically by family.

4. People listed by participation in defined series of events (family history,
biography, local history, crime investigations)

5. The events of the period should be available. This information is
external to the genealogy record but is a great value add for this kind
of report. The events can be obtained for "this day in history" kinds of
data available on the net. It should be able to be customized for world
events, country events, more local events, etc. The user should be able
to input this data which would be stored by the program for future use.

Reports include time lines, bar charts showing birth/death or other
information of individuals from the genealogy record.

--
_ _ Dale DePriest
/`) _ // http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
o/_/ (_(_X_(` For GPS and GPS/PDAs

[Gjest]

is there any more info for developments for the internet

[Leif B. Kristensen]

[email protected] wrote:

is there any more info for developments for the internet

http://w3c.org/
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen
http://solumslekt.org/

[Jeff]

""Bev Morris"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000d01c513a9$24f71320$f3b91345@0022373062...

I subscribed a couple of months ago and have been reading
the messages. Most
everything is over my head, but I'm hoping someone will
help me and keep in
mind that I'm illeterate with the computer language.
I have Family Tree Maker Version 11 and cannot add any new
people. I know
I'm not out of memory. This is what comes up in the box
when I try to add a
new person or data about someone.
"An error has occured in OLE2NLS DLL. Please try
reinstalling OLE".
Also, I can't GedCom anymore.
I will be ever so grateful for help. Please keep in mind
that I would need
step by step instructions.
Thanks,
Bev

There is a pretty good description of this problem at:

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/AR ... 1023581827

It seems to suggest that simply rebooting is the answer.

[Lesley Robertson]

""Bev Morris"" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:000201c513f0$f9104900$38f01345@0022373062...

Jeff, et al:
I printed out everything from the site you suggested, but there appears to
be nothing there that helps. When the box regarding OLE2NLS.DLL appears,
my
computer locks up and I have no recourse, I have to reboot.. When I do the
problem keep happening.
I have the newest version of Family Tree Maker. I have been afraid to load
it because of the problem I'm having. Would that help or make things
worse?
I'm so frustrated, I could scream!
Please, somebody help!
Bev

Here's something to try:

First, without starting FTM, copy & paste your family file/files to another
directory/floppy/memory stick or whatever. Then uninstall FTM ([control
panel] [add/remove software] pick FTM from the list and follow instructions)
and reinstall it. That's usually much easier than trying to fix the problem.
Your family file should still be OK, but if it isn't, you have the copy you
made.
Lesley Robertson

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?




--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: [email protected] (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

[Denis Beauregard]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:10:04 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?

I tried to install Windows 98 on the laptop I purchased and it was
not possible. But Linux is running on it. I tested it with Knoppix
before buying it.

As to get a credit (which is roughly $50), for not having Win XP,
forget that. Very few dealers will give it (except perhaps IBM and
maybe HP which are supposed to sell now PC with Linux).


Denis

[iggy]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

try the newsgroup at 24hoursupport.helpdesk

iggy

[Robert Heiling]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.

You have cause to be concerned, IMHO. XP is slow-slow-slow and always seems to be
doing something in the background that ties up the system - whatever that might
be. That "recovery disc" will destroy any partitions you have set up for
multi-booting. I know already from personal experience on this 2-month old system
that came with XP installed.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system,

They may not do that in any given case, but it my area they are selling desktops
with Linux and the price reflects that reduction. Perhaps you can find such a
laptop.

and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that.

Sounds good to me! Watch out for XP though. I installed Win98 first, which is
basically the only way to install. I then installed XP, but it not only used
partition 2 that I had assigned for it, but also loaded up the Win98 partition
with a bunch of its junk. There was no option given to combine the XP boot &
system partitions during the install.

Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

XP probably will give you trouble in that regard even though it has a sometimes
works, sometimes doesn't, compatibility mode.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?

For anyone whose system is a single-user system and is accustomed to handling
their own backup & recoveries, the overhead and dumbed-down operation of XP is too
high a price to pay. You're on the right track. Stay with it!

HTH
Bob

[Paul Blair]

Robert Heiling wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:


On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:


No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.


You have cause to be concerned, IMHO. XP is slow-slow-slow and always seems to be
doing something in the background that ties up the system - whatever that might
be. That "recovery disc" will destroy any partitions you have set up for
multi-booting. I know already from personal experience on this 2-month old system
that came with XP installed.


So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system,


They may not do that in any given case, but it my area they are selling desktops
with Linux and the price reflects that reduction. Perhaps you can find such a
laptop.


and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that.


Sounds good to me! Watch out for XP though. I installed Win98 first, which is
basically the only way to install. I then installed XP, but it not only used
partition 2 that I had assigned for it, but also loaded up the Win98 partition
with a bunch of its junk. There was no option given to combine the XP boot &
system partitions during the install.


Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.


XP probably will give you trouble in that regard even though it has a sometimes
works, sometimes doesn't, compatibility mode.


Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?


For anyone whose system is a single-user system and is accustomed to handling
their own backup & recoveries, the overhead and dumbed-down operation of XP is too
high a price to pay. You're on the right track. Stay with it!

HTH
Bob

I find this extreme, to say the least. Not even credible.

After running XP on probably 50 different machines, thru native, SP1 and
SP2, there must be something you are doing yourself to create the mayhem
you describe. For me, in stand-alone and network versions, things have
been quite solid and trouble free.

SP2 adds in some things designed to protect us from ourselves and some
less-than-perfect code in the applications we use. They shouldn't be
necessary, but they are. So, move on. Accept the minor delays they
cause...I'll bet no-one is working *that* hard that they are facing
insolvency because of them.

Paul Blair
Canberra, Australia

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:56:30 -0500, Denis Beauregard <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:10:04 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?

I tried to install Windows 98 on the laptop I purchased and it was
not possible. But Linux is running on it. I tested it with Knoppix
before buying it.

Why was that?

Is there any reason why Win 98 would not install?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Denis Beauregard]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:53:51 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:56:30 -0500, Denis Beauregard <[email protected]
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:10:04 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?

I tried to install Windows 98 on the laptop I purchased and it was
not possible. But Linux is running on it. I tested it with Knoppix
before buying it.

Why was that?

Is there any reason why Win 98 would not install?

I don't know why. I tried Mandrake Linux and Windows 98 and none
could install. But Debian Linux did it, like Knoppix.

Perhaps, they could not recognize the CD-ROM disk drive ? I have
Win 98 on my desktop and both PCs are connected in a LAN to the
Internet.


Denis

[Jim Cladingboel]

"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Robert Heiling wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:


On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:


No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.


You have cause to be concerned, IMHO. XP is slow-slow-slow and always seems to be
doing something in the background that ties up the system - whatever that might
be. That "recovery disc" will destroy any partitions you have set up for
multi-booting. I know already from personal experience on this 2-month old system
that came with XP installed.


So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system,


They may not do that in any given case, but it my area they are selling desktops
with Linux and the price reflects that reduction. Perhaps you can find such a
laptop.


and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that.


Sounds good to me! Watch out for XP though. I installed Win98 first, which is
basically the only way to install. I then installed XP, but it not only used
partition 2 that I had assigned for it, but also loaded up the Win98 partition
with a bunch of its junk. There was no option given to combine the XP boot &
system partitions during the install.


Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.


XP probably will give you trouble in that regard even though it has a sometimes
works, sometimes doesn't, compatibility mode.


Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?


For anyone whose system is a single-user system and is accustomed to handling
their own backup & recoveries, the overhead and dumbed-down operation of XP is too
high a price to pay. You're on the right track. Stay with it!

HTH
Bob

I find this extreme, to say the least. Not even credible.

After running XP on probably 50 different machines, thru native, SP1 and
SP2, there must be something you are doing yourself to create the mayhem
you describe. For me, in stand-alone and network versions, things have
been quite solid and trouble free.

SP2 adds in some things designed to protect us from ourselves and some
less-than-perfect code in the applications we use. They shouldn't be
necessary, but they are. So, move on. Accept the minor delays they
cause...I'll bet no-one is working *that* hard that they are facing
insolvency because of them.

Paul Blair
Canberra, Australia

It is my clear understanding that the last version of Windows which supported DOS
was Windows ME. XP is an entirely different O/S and, apart from not allowing
any DOS programs to run, suffers from a lack of drivers for many older hardware
items, eg scanners, printers etc., for which the manufacturers have not released
XP-compatible drivers. I have stuck with Win ME ! HTH

--
Jim, in sunny Brisbane, Oz..

[Hugh Watkins]

"Steve Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP
professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in
strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs
not
running.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux,
and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and
I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with
Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard
disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from
the
"recovery disc"?

up to date patches against attacks

win 98 will soon no longer be supported or updated

add the latest norton ante virus update it once ot twice a week
and Norton utilities in the newets version

I get MacAfee firewall as a freebie from my AOL membership

I always get double memory on any new computer and will probably get 4 times
on my next
XP is more than one year old and just runs and runs
blue screens are very very rare

Hugh W

[Thingy]

In message <[email protected]>, Jim Cladingboel
<[email protected]> writes

It is my clear understanding that the last version of Windows which
supported DOS was Windows ME. XP is an entirely different O/S and,
apart from not allowing any DOS programs to run, suffers from a lack of
drivers for many older hardware items, eg scanners, printers etc., for
which the manufacturers have not released XP-compatible drivers. I
have stuck with Win ME ! HTH
You've stuck with ME? How bizarre. If I were to remain with an

unsupported out-of-date OS on the grounds that it wasn't XP, it's be
Win98. ME was/ is awful - bug-ridden, slow, you name it - to the extent
that many reputable dealers stopped supplying it even when it was
extant.

Most of the initial problems with XP were solved with SP2 - the main
problem people now have is with the automatic updates, but provided you
have a *legal* copy of the OS, you should have no difficulties. I too
find the "nanny" attitude of Microsquish and XP frustrating, but that
said, I've found ways round most of it where I've actually needed to.
OK, so this can take some ingenuity, but if you really need to you will,
and if you can't then you probably a) don't need to and b) don't have
sufficient knowledge for it to be a good idea. Oh, and before you ask,
my background goes back to before CP/M.


--

Thingy
I'm not short, I'm concentrated

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:54:40 -0000, "Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]>
wrote:

"Steve Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP
professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in
strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs
not
running.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux,
and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and
I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with
Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard
disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from
the
"recovery disc"?

up to date patches against attacks

win 98 will soon no longer be supported or updated

add the latest norton ante virus update it once ot twice a week
and Norton utilities in the newets version

I get MacAfee firewall as a freebie from my AOL membership

I always get double memory on any new computer and will probably get 4 times
on my next
XP is more than one year old and just runs and runs
blue screens are very very rare

Does it print from DOS programs?


--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: [email protected] (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

[Thingy]

In message <[email protected]>, Steve Hayes
<[email protected]> writes

Does it print from DOS programs?

They can be made to print from it, yes

--

Thingy
I'm not short, I'm concentrated

[Paul Blair]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:54:40 -0000, "Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]
wrote:


"Steve Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:


No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP
professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in
strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs
not
running.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux,
and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and
I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with
Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard
disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from
the
"recovery disc"?

up to date patches against attacks

win 98 will soon no longer be supported or updated

add the latest norton ante virus update it once ot twice a week
and Norton utilities in the newets version

I get MacAfee firewall as a freebie from my AOL membership

I always get double memory on any new computer and will probably get 4 times
on my next
XP is more than one year old and just runs and runs
blue screens are very very rare


Does it print from DOS programs?


There is a PRINT command in DOS, set up to print a text file to a device.

However, in NT (XP), depending on how much hardware is in your box, all
the available IRQs (interrupt requests, qv) may be used up. It is
possible to fix this - Google around for "dos print" and you will find
how to adjust the registers to overcome the problem.

Paul Blair

[Robert Burns]

I am with Paul on this. I have used XP from the days when it was being beta
tested and apart from having to search out some drivers for my older
products it as been great ( XP PRO). DOS can be run in XP by just going to
run and typing command. Programs can be set to run in different formats
right click and then run as.

XP in my opinion doesn't leech as much memory as 98 or ME did and although
its some 92meg bigger it is far more user friendly. In particular I love
the ability to over ride the auto cookie handling.

As for its incompatibility with 98SE I have a partitioned second PC and have
98 on partition one and XP on partition 2 allowing me to have a dual boot pc
without a single problem. My only problem with XP is the fact no java
machine is installed as default as it was in earlier versions but that's
SUN's fault.

I wouldn't go back to single boot win98 system if it was the last on earth,
but then I wouldn't given the choice use anything M$ anyway

Rob
"Paul Blair" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Robert Heiling wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:


On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:


No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP
professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in
strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs
not
running.


You have cause to be concerned, IMHO. XP is slow-slow-slow and always
seems to be
doing something in the background that ties up the system - whatever
that might
be. That "recovery disc" will destroy any partitions you have set up
for
multi-booting. I know already from personal experience on this 2-month
old system
that came with XP installed.


So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an
operating
system,


They may not do that in any given case, but it my area they are selling
desktops
with Linux and the price reflects that reduction. Perhaps you can find
such a
laptop.


and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that.


Sounds good to me! Watch out for XP though. I installed Win98 first,
which is
basically the only way to install. I then installed XP, but it not only
used
partition 2 that I had assigned for it, but also loaded up the Win98
partition
with a bunch of its junk. There was no option given to combine the XP
boot &
system partitions during the install.


Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with
Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.


XP probably will give you trouble in that regard even though it has a
sometimes
works, sometimes doesn't, compatibility mode.


Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the
hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from
the
"recovery disc"?


For anyone whose system is a single-user system and is accustomed to
handling
their own backup & recoveries, the overhead and dumbed-down operation of
XP is too
high a price to pay. You're on the right track. Stay with it!

HTH
Bob

I find this extreme, to say the least. Not even credible.

After running XP on probably 50 different machines, thru native, SP1 and
SP2, there must be something you are doing yourself to create the mayhem
you describe. For me, in stand-alone and network versions, things have
been quite solid and trouble free.

SP2 adds in some things designed to protect us from ourselves and some
less-than-perfect code in the applications we use. They shouldn't be
necessary, but they are. So, move on. Accept the minor delays they
cause...I'll bet no-one is working *that* hard that they are facing
insolvency because of them.

Paul Blair
Canberra, Australia

[Chad Hanna]

In message <[email protected]>, Robert Burns
<[email protected]> writes

I am with Paul on this. I have used XP from the days when it was being beta
tested and apart from having to search out some drivers for my older
products it as been great ( XP PRO).
The XP pro drivers don't seem to exist for some products - but then

again, I remember someone donating us a Umax scanner because there
wasn't a driver for Me. I find drivers for scanners like my HP Scanjet
IIcx, and printers, HP LaserJet 4L, HP Deskjet 1120 are either less
functional or don't seem to operate correctly on XP (incorrect margins).

I'm forced to agree that XP is probably the 'best' Windows OS since
Windows 98SE.

DOS can be run in XP by just going to
run and typing command. Programs can be set to run in different formats
right click and then run as.
I think you mean many DOS programs can be run. DOS underlaid Windows

...., 98 and Me but doesn't form part of the code for Windows NT that XP
is derived from. I would expect compatibility problems with some DOS
programs that try and interact directly with the hardware - but that
happened under earlier Windows (non-NT).

XP in my opinion doesn't leech as much memory as 98 or ME did and although
its some 92meg bigger it is far more user friendly. In particular I love
the ability to over ride the auto cookie handling.
I believe cookie handling was part of Internet Explorer rather than XP.

The Security Centre^H^Her in SP2 doesn't make any reference to it?

As for its incompatibility with 98SE I have a partitioned second PC and have
98 on partition one and XP on partition 2 allowing me to have a dual boot pc
without a single problem. My only problem with XP is the fact no java
machine is installed as default as it was in earlier versions but that's
SUN's fault.
Depends on your point of view. I blame the marketing droids.

I wouldn't go back to single boot win98 system if it was the last on earth,
but then I wouldn't given the choice use anything M$ anyway
An Apple is beginning to look very interesting. Given that a) OS X is

based on an operating system (BSD Un*x) that I'm fairly familiar with b)
Generations doesn't co-operate with Omnipage on XP.

Rob

Cheers, Chad

--
Chad Hanna
Chairman Berkshire Family History Society http://www.berksfhs.org.uk
Quality Family History Data http://www.familyhistoryonline.net

[Stuart Morgan]

Thingy wrote:

In message <[email protected]>, Jim Cladingboel
[email protected]> writes
It is my clear understanding that the last version of Windows which
supported DOS was Windows ME. XP is an entirely different O/S and,
apart from not allowing any DOS programs to run, suffers from a lack of
drivers for many older hardware items, eg scanners, printers etc., for
which the manufacturers have not released XP-compatible drivers. I
have stuck with Win ME ! HTH
You've stuck with ME? How bizarre. If I were to remain with an
unsupported out-of-date OS on the grounds that it wasn't XP, it's be
Win98. ME was/ is awful - bug-ridden, slow, you name it - to the extent
that many reputable dealers stopped supplying it even when it was
extant.

Windows 2000 (Pro) was the best option IMHO. It still had a DOS prompt and
ran DOS programs but was far, FAR more stable than Windows 98/SE/ME.
Windows XP was based on 2000, just more bloated and dumbed down.
--
Stuart Morgan
Family Tree - http://www.tase.co.uk/
Morgan-UK Interests - http://www.tase.co.uk/morgan-uk/

[Robert Heiling]

Paul Blair wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.

You have cause to be concerned, IMHO. XP is slow-slow-slow and always seems to be
doing something in the background that ties up the system - whatever that might
be. That "recovery disc" will destroy any partitions you have set up for
multi-booting. I know already from personal experience on this 2-month old system
that came with XP installed.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system,

They may not do that in any given case, but it my area they are selling desktops
with Linux and the price reflects that reduction. Perhaps you can find such a
laptop.

and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that.

Sounds good to me! Watch out for XP though. I installed Win98 first, which is
basically the only way to install. I then installed XP, but it not only used
partition 2 that I had assigned for it, but also loaded up the Win98 partition
with a bunch of its junk. There was no option given to combine the XP boot &
system partitions during the install.

Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

XP probably will give you trouble in that regard even though it has a sometimes
works, sometimes doesn't, compatibility mode.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?

For anyone whose system is a single-user system and is accustomed to handling
their own backup & recoveries, the overhead and dumbed-down operation of XP is too
high a price to pay. You're on the right track. Stay with it!

I find this extreme, to say the least.

I thought so also. Two months ago when I bought this machine, I used the original XP and
immediately let it install SP2 and other upgrades. No fiddling with it on my part! My
previous Win98 on the secondary slave HD could be booted into manually via the bios. The
speed advantage of Win98 over WinXP on this new machine was quite obvious as were the
quirks of WinXP.

Not even credible.

After running XP on probably 50 different machines, thru native, SP1 and
SP2, there must be something you are doing yourself to create the mayhem
you describe. For me, in stand-alone and network versions, things have
been quite solid and trouble free.

You must be missing something then. My boot screen gives me a choice of WinXP, Win98,
Win2kPro, and Linux. The comparison is obvious to me. If you've made a similar setup on
over 50 machines then I'll be coming to you for advice.

SP2 adds in some things designed to protect us from ourselves and some
less-than-perfect code in the applications we use. They shouldn't be
necessary, but they are. So, move on. Accept the minor delays they
cause...I'll bet no-one is working *that* hard that they are facing
insolvency because of them.

"Minor delays"? Sounds as though you're fudging on what you said previously. Hmmmmm. You
can't have it both ways you know.

Bob

[Ron Recer]

"Denis Beauregard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:53:51 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:56:30 -0500, Denis Beauregard
[email protected]
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:10:04 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the
hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP
from the
"recovery disc"?

I tried to install Windows 98 on the laptop I purchased and it was
not possible. But Linux is running on it. I tested it with Knoppix
before buying it.

Why was that?

Is there any reason why Win 98 would not install?

I don't know why. I tried Mandrake Linux and Windows 98 and none
could install. But Debian Linux did it, like Knoppix.

Perhaps, they could not recognize the CD-ROM disk drive ? I have
Win 98 on my desktop and both PCs are connected in a LAN to the
Internet.


Denis

How about that WIN 98 doesn't have drivers for some/all of the hardware on a

new PC.

Ron

[Jeff]

"Steve Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP
So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me
without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win
98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often
are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having
difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

I hve XP Home but still have drives formatted in FAT32.

I run many DOS programs (mainly written by me) and they run
just fine. As far as drivers are concerned its not really an
issue with me. If I'm printing I always output to a text
file which I print from XP.

ButI suspect it is dangerous to generalise from one persons
experience.

[Bob Melson]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:25:20 +0000, Robert Burns wrote:

I am with Paul on this. I have used XP from the days when it was being
beta tested and apart from having to search out some drivers for my older
products it as been great ( XP PRO). DOS can be run in XP by just going
to run and typing command. Programs can be set to run in different
formats right click and then run as.

XP in my opinion doesn't leech as much memory as 98 or ME did and although
its some 92meg bigger it is far more user friendly. In particular I love
the ability to over ride the auto cookie handling.

As for its incompatibility with 98SE I have a partitioned second PC and
have 98 on partition one and XP on partition 2 allowing me to have a dual
boot pc without a single problem. My only problem with XP is the fact no
java machine is installed as default as it was in earlier versions but
that's SUN's fault.

I wouldn't go back to single boot win98 system if it was the last on
earth, but then I wouldn't given the choice use anything M$ anyway

snip

I suspect it's all a matter of how XP is installed. Most systems today
come pre-loaded, with a recovery disk that absolutely duplicates the
system image as installed by the OEM. However, if you've purchased the XP
Home or XP Pro package separately, you have the option of carving up your
disks as you desire and of creating multi-os boot partitions. I think
this may well account for Bob's problems and Paul's lack of same: Bob
has/had a pre-loaded system + recovery, Paul installed himself from the XP
package.

HTH,
The other (Swell Ol') Bob


--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net

[Hugh Watkins]

"Steve Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote

snip>

Does it print from DOS programs?

ask in the XP group
OT here

I don't use DOS antiques other than the 1851 England census cd
and I work as paperless as possible

Hugh W

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:53:49 GMT, Thingy <[email protected]> wrote:

In message <[email protected]>, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> writes
Does it print from DOS programs?

They can be made to print from it, yes

The question is, how?

I haven't been able to print results from PAF RDF to disk since I began using
Windows 9x, and now (using a USB printer) I can't even print them to paper.

And I've never found a satisfactory substitute for PAF RDF. It's the reason I
bpought PAF in the first place.

[ follow-ups set to soc.genealogy.computing ]




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Paul Blair]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:53:49 GMT, Thingy <[email protected]> wrote:


In message <[email protected]>, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> writes

Does it print from DOS programs?

They can be made to print from it, yes


The question is, how?

I haven't been able to print results from PAF RDF to disk since I began using
Windows 9x, and now (using a USB printer) I can't even print them to paper.

And I've never found a satisfactory substitute for PAF RDF. It's the reason I
bpought PAF in the first place.

[ follow-ups set to soc.genealogy.computing ]




RDF? As in XML?

Paul

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:22:23 +1100, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:53:49 GMT, Thingy <[email protected]> wrote:


In message <[email protected]>, Steve Hayes
[email protected]> writes

Does it print from DOS programs?

They can be made to print from it, yes


The question is, how?

I haven't been able to print results from PAF RDF to disk since I began using
Windows 9x, and now (using a USB printer) I can't even print them to paper.

And I've never found a satisfactory substitute for PAF RDF. It's the reason I
bpought PAF in the first place.

[ follow-ups set to soc.genealogy.computing ]




RDF? As in XML?

As in Research Data Filer, a program distributed with PAF 2.x to index one's
paper files.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[David Harper]

Steve Hayes wrote:

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an
operating system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win
98 SE and Linux, and run it with that.

Remember to install Windows first and then Linux, otherwise the Windows
installer will over-write the boot loader and you'll never see Linux
again

I've heard that XP behaves in strange ways, and my wife's computer
has XP on it, and warns of various programs not running.

I'd be the last person to defend any flavour of Windows, but I do have a
machine running XP Pro patched with SP2, since I need a Windows box for
my studies with the Open University (http://www.open.ac.uk for those of you who
are curious) and it seems to work just fine.

It's certainly much more stable than Win98 ever was. It was Win98's
extreme flakiness that drove me to Linux in the first place

The machine has a gigabyte of RAM, because WinXP is a notorious memory hog.

I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional installed, which comes
with a "recovery disc".

I was in the market for a laptop a couple of years ago, when there were
still issues getting Linux to work on the proprietary and specialised
hardware used in a lot of laptops. In the end, I went for a Mac
PowerBook, because it gave me all the Linux/Unix-style programming tools
plus a rather nice user interface.

But I digress ...

David Harper
Cambridge, E

[Steve Hayes]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:08:59 +1100, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:

Steve Hayes wrote:

There is a PRINT command in DOS, set up to print a text file to a device.

However, in NT (XP), depending on how much hardware is in your box, all
the available IRQs (interrupt requests, qv) may be used up. It is
possible to fix this - Google around for "dos print" and you will find
how to adjust the registers to overcome the problem.

I'll try to Google for such a thing. I recently installed a USB printer (with
Win 98) and it doesn't seem to print from DOS programs, though according to
the Windows manuals it ought to.

The problem with PAFRDF is that I sometimes used a little DOS utility called
PRN2FILE to capture printer outpot and send it to a disk file, But that no
longer works under Win 98. That enabled one to import the file into a Windows
program (like notepad) and print from there. And also to send the reports to
fellow researchers by e-mail instead of snail mail.

One program I use does have an internal print to file, and I can still use
that, but PAF RDF doesn't.



--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: [email protected] (see web page if it doesn't work)
Web: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/

[singhals]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:08:59 +1100, Paul Blair <[email protected]> wrote:


Steve Hayes wrote:


There is a PRINT command in DOS, set up to print a text file to a device.

However, in NT (XP), depending on how much hardware is in your box, all
the available IRQs (interrupt requests, qv) may be used up. It is
possible to fix this - Google around for "dos print" and you will find
how to adjust the registers to overcome the problem.


I'll try to Google for such a thing. I recently installed a USB printer (with
Win 98) and it doesn't seem to print from DOS programs, though according to
the Windows manuals it ought to.

The problem with PAFRDF is that I sometimes used a little DOS utility called
PRN2FILE to capture printer outpot and send it to a disk file, But that no
longer works under Win 98. That enabled one to import the file into a Windows
program (like notepad) and print from there. And also to send the reports to
fellow researchers by e-mail instead of snail mail.

One program I use does have an internal print to file, and I can still use
that, but PAF RDF doesn't.

The generic text printer won't work with RDF? (Personally, I've
detested RDF ever since it overwrote one alpha.dat file with a 2nd
alpha.dat file without asking and wiped out a 400-name dataset. I
hadn't liked it overmuch up to that point, but after that --!!)

Cheryl

[Ronald Earl Thomas]

Aaacckk!

Be sure you get your original Windows XP installation disks with your
purchase!! To many of the discount retailers out there are trying to
avoid this. You are buying a license to use one (1) copy of XP and
microshaft will hold you to it. M$ will not care if your retailer did
not supply you with the disks - be sure you have the ability (in case
ever needed) to install it again, not just 'recover' for some
potential crash.

Good luck! I have to echo another reply you received - have had XP
for a year, and no crashes, blue screens, etc. Yes, I'm sure I could
have Windows 98 SE running faster on this machine that XP, but why go
through the hassle of a yearly clean-up/reinstall of 98SE in order to
get optimal performance?

RT
Estes Park, CO

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:10:04 GMT, [email protected] (Steve Hayes)
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:

No I haven't...just good old basic XP

Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?

[Rick Merrill]

Throw wrote:

G'day

My problem is similar to that of Harmen in a similar thread. I would
love to convert my uncle's family tree (600 persons from about 8
generations) into Gedcom format.

My uncle genealogy format looks something like this:

b1c2d1e1 Elsie Sophia (Murray) Theron (onderwyseres) * 11:01:1884 te
Loxton + 30:03:1967 te Pretoria en begrawe te Zandfontein, Pretoria x
02:11:1927 te (plek?) met Wouter A Theron (onderwyser) * (datum?) te
(plek?) + (datum?) te Pretoria en begrawe te Zandfontein, Pretoria

The above line is in Afrikaans, but there's an English version of it
too. The format is fairly consistent.

....

Where did you GET this format? (disk/printout)
You must (nore or less) use a genealogy software package to output
the latest GEDCOM format. - RM

[Throw]

Rick Merrill wrote:

Throw wrote:

My problem is similar to that of Harmen in a similar thread. I
would love to convert my uncle's family tree (600 persons from
about 8 generations) into Gedcom format.

My uncle genealogy format looks something like this:

b1c2d1e1 Elsie Sophia (Murray) Theron (onderwyseres) * 11:01:1884
te Loxton + 30:03:1967 te Pretoria en begrawe te Zandfontein,
Pretoria x 02:11:1927 te (plek?) met Wouter A Theron (onderwyser) *
(datum?) te (plek?) + (datum?) te Pretoria en begrawe te
Zandfontein, Pretoria

Where did you GET this format? (disk/printout)

I have since discovered that this format is called De Villiers/Pama,
and is a very common format in South Africa. It was designed over 100
years ago, and was (obviously) designed for print, ease of reading, and
ease of updating on typewriter.

Samuel

[Rick Merrill]

Throw wrote:

Rick Merrill wrote:


Throw wrote:


My problem is similar to that of Harmen in a similar thread. I
would love to convert my uncle's family tree (600 persons from
about 8 generations) into Gedcom format.

My uncle genealogy format looks something like this:

b1c2d1e1 Elsie Sophia (Murray) Theron (onderwyseres) * 11:01:1884
te Loxton + 30:03:1967 te Pretoria en begrawe te Zandfontein,
Pretoria x 02:11:1927 te (plek?) met Wouter A Theron (onderwyser) *
(datum?) te (plek?) + (datum?) te Pretoria en begrawe te
Zandfontein, Pretoria


Where did you GET this format? (disk/printout)


I have since discovered that this format is called De Villiers/Pama,
and is a very common format in South Africa. It was designed over 100
years ago, and was (obviously) designed for print, ease of reading, and
ease of updating on typewriter.

Samuel

Legacy 5.0

http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Index.asp?mid=45I7NCi

= free copy MAY be able to READ your format and then output a GEDCOM.

Let us know how it goes.

[Scott]

Samuel,

I have been working on your format the last two days, I should
have it converted by this TUE 07:03:2005. I'll forward your GEDCOM file
as soon as I finish.

Scott

[BasketWeaver]

huh?

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

For all women in the world.

I recently asked women to got knocked up by the alpha males.

Seems that the term of alpha males are confusing.

So tell you what girls. Just follow your feeling, mate with males that
you feel the most attractive too.

Any woman that's pro choice will do that. If you pick attractive males,
future gene pool will be filled with attractive males.

Attractive males pro females choice. The reason females' choices are
circumspenced all over the place is because many males are
unattractive. So they make sex laws to ration females to all males.
Anti polygamy and anti prostitution is one of them.

Females, if you're really pro choice, start picking with males that's
pro females' choice. That's got to be the most attractive males. More
attractive males want women to have all the right to choose because
when women can choose they choose the best and brightest.

What are attractive males?

1. Power
2. Wealth
3. Brain
4. Look
5. Witty
6. Humor
7. Achievements that signals genetic superiority.

Whatever.

Now of course women want to mate with attractive males. Say that
aloud...!!!!!!

Say what you want aloud so all males know what you want. That way
lesser cocks will have harder time making up laws that reduces females'
freedom.

Sign the petition here:
http://petitiononline.com/sexwith

Cotam

[Don.]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:11:52 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
("Arcadia") wrote:


No I haven't...just good old basic XP


Speaking of good old basic XP, I'm about to buy a laptop with XP professional
installed, which comes with a "recovery disc".

I'm a bit worried about this, because I've heard that XP behaves in strange
ways, and my wife's computer has XP on it, and warns of various programs not
running.

So I'm inclined to ask them if they'll sell it to me without an operating
system, and I'll just partition the disk, and install Win 98 SE and Linux, and
run it with that. Most of the programs I use most often are DOS ones, and I'm
not sure Windows XP can handle those, if it's having difficulty with Windows
programs loke Lotus Approach.

Can anyone give any advice on this?

What are the advantages of "good old basic SP"? If I reformatted the hard disk
and partitioned it, would I be able to reinstall "good old basic XP from the
"recovery disc"?

The main thing I found with XP DOS is that the features are accessed by
right clicking on the top "toolbar", which it ain't. A pull down
appears wiht several features including *Edit*. From the Edit you get
another set of options to Mark, Copy (Ctrl+Enter), Paste, Select All,
and Find. XP DOS operations are really a PITA if you still use them
often. Also, if you need to Boot to DOS forget it! There ain't none.

Some of these things you don't notice just playing with it, you have to
sleep with it to find out the hidden problems.

ZP's really trickey to set up there are lots of hidden *Customize*
options here and there, some hidden so well I can't find them from one
day to another.

I found it slow in some operations and very fast in others. I finally
gave up and went back to Win98SE; at a feeble 75 I just couldn't handle
the learning curve!

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[john]

Wanda Casker wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

http://www.cyndislist.com/software.htm#Mac

[Gerry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Wanda Casker) wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

I highly recommend Reunion from Leister Productions the current version
is 8.0, a demo version can be downloaded from their web site at:

<http://www.leisterpro.com/>

PS Macintosh is abbreviated Mac (MAC is a completely other computer
related term)

Gerry

[BE Kelly]

Wanda Casker wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

I'm not a Mac user but I do remember reading posts in this group
about a program called Reunion for Mac's. If you search the
archives of this group at Google Groups you should find
references to it.

BE Kelly

[Wanda Casker]

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

[dn11231]

Wanda Casker wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

I am not a MAC user, but have used Heredis for Windows for a quit while.

You may try the MAC X version http://www.myheredis.com/discover_macx.htm

--
Kjell Henry Skåden
http://home.online.no/~old.navy/
Alle E-mail kontrollert med Norton 2005

-------
Gack därhän och skåden
http://home.online.no/~old.navy/Totti/
-------

[Steve W. Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
"mclaughl" <[email protected]> wrote:

Is this the best News Group to ask about Hand Held (PDA) techniques?

Thanks,

Mike

No, that would be over in soc.genealogy.computing, which I've added to
this reply.

= Steve =
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama

[Ron Parsons]

In article <[email protected]>,
Gerry <[email protected]> wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Wanda Casker) wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

I highly recommend Reunion from Leister Productions the current version
is 8.0, a demo version can be downloaded from their web site at:

http://www.leisterpro.com/

PS Macintosh is abbreviated Mac (MAC is a completely other computer
related term)

Gerry

Actually Reunion is at 8.0.6 now. Those of us who use it feel that it is
the best program available on any platform.

[Doug McDonald]

Ron Parsons wrote:

Actually Reunion is at 8.0.6 now. Those of us who use it feel that it is
the best program available on any platform.

I've tried it on the PC and found it actually unuseable bad, due
to horrific data entry problems. It appeard to be unable even
to import a simple GEDCOM without mangling names somthing awful.

Exactly, of course, what you would expect from the French.

Doug McDonald

[Chad Hanna]

In message <[email protected]>, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> writes

Ron Parsons wrote:

Actually Reunion is at 8.0.6 now. Those of us who use it feel that
it is the best program available on any platform.

I've tried it on the PC and found it actually unuseable bad, due
to horrific data entry problems. It appeard to be unable even
to import a simple GEDCOM without mangling names somthing awful.

Exactly, of course, what you would expect from the French.

Doug McDonald

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Doug's reply seems to be a reference
to Heredis not Reunion - which hasn't been available (under that name)
on PC/Windows for a long, long time. Reunion is a US program.

For me, Generations (the PC version of Reunion) was pretty much broken
by Windows XP/Omnipage.

Chad

--
Chad Hanna
Chairman Berkshire Family History Society http://www.berksfhs.org.uk
Quality Family History Data http://www.familyhistoryonline.net

[Doug McDonald]

Chad Hanna wrote:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Doug's reply seems to be a reference
to Heredis not Reunion - which hasn't been available (under that name)
on PC/Windows for a long, long time. Reunion is a US program.

You are correct, and I apologize.

Doug McDonald

[Joe Makowiec]

On 29 Mar 2005 in soc.genealogy.computing, Steve W. Jackson wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
"mclaughl" <[email protected]> wrote:

Is this the best News Group to ask about Hand Held (PDA) techniques?

No, that would be over in soc.genealogy.computing, which I've added
to
this reply.

Oh, wow, an actual post to a.g.methods! Ahem...

In answer to the OP's question:

You have to decide between the WinCE platform (HP/Compaq iPaq, etc) and
Palm OS (Palm). I won't go into the arguments here, but I will say
that I prefer Palm. Then the choice comes down to a couple of
programs:

For Palm, there's GedStar (http://www.ghcssoftware.com/index.htm) in a
couple of versions. GedStar Pro will read directly from The Master
Genealogist® (TMG), Legacy Family Tree®, Family Tree Maker™ and
Personal Ancestral File (PAF) without using a GEDCOM file, and by
GEDCOM from other genealogy programs.

Also for Palm, last I knew, PAF comes bundled with an earlier version
of GedStar basic.

For WinCE, there's Pocket Genealogist
(http://www.northernhillssoftware.com/mainframe.htm) in Basic or
Advanced. Advanced will deal directly with Legacy, TMG, RootsMagic and
Ancestral Quest dbs.

Both programs have a trial version; I have no connection with either
other than as a satisfied customer of GedStar.

It's great to be prowling a cemetery and be able to whip the PDA out of
your pocket and look up a name in your database - far easier than
lugging a laptop or carrying sheafs of paper.

To push this a little further - some PDAs now have Global Positioning
Sattelite (GPS) built in; you could take a GPS fix on a location and
record it for future reference. Wouldn't it be great to be able to re-
locate the family plot, or the old homestead, without having to go all
over the area, trying to remember what things looked like from the last
visit five years ago?

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Lesley Robertson]

"Joe Makowiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

To push this a little further - some PDAs now have Global Positioning
Sattelite (GPS) built in; you could take a GPS fix on a location and
record it for future reference. Wouldn't it be great to be able to re-
locate the family plot, or the old homestead, without having to go all
over the area, trying to remember what things looked like from the last
visit five years ago?

How precise is this? Would it be useful for recording inscriptions in a
burial ground, for example? That would probably need to have precision down
to +/- a couple of feet to tell neighbouring stones apart. My usual sheets
of graph paper always end up soggy, or torn........
Lesley Robertson
(spotting an excuse to buy a new gadget....)

[Joe Makowiec]

On 30 Mar 2005 in soc.genealogy.computing, Lesley Robertson wrote:

"Joe Makowiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

To push this a little further - some PDAs now have Global
Positioning Sattelite (GPS) built in; you could take a GPS fix on a
location and record it for future reference. Wouldn't it be great
to be able to re- locate the family plot, or the old homestead,
without having to go all over the area, trying to remember what
things looked like from the last visit five years ago?

How precise is this? Would it be useful for recording inscriptions
in a burial ground, for example? That would probably need to have
precision down to +/- a couple of feet to tell neighbouring stones
apart. My usual sheets of graph paper always end up soggy, or
torn........ Lesley Robertson
(spotting an excuse to buy a new gadget....)

I haven't investigated it myself; a quick web search indicates a lot of
information on GPS accuracy. Needless to say, it depends to some extent
on how much you spend. (Apparently, it also depends on weather,
latitude, time of day, ...) I saw figures from ±1m to ±10m. This might
be a starting point:

http://www.geod.nrcan.gc.ca/index_e/geo ... -13_e.html

But even getting to within 10 meters has got to be better than spending
half an hour reading all the stones in a section of a graveyard!

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Lesley Robertson]

"Joe Makowiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

But even getting to within 10 meters has got to be better than spending
half an hour reading all the stones in a section of a graveyard!

I'm busy transcribing a whole burial ground - and mostly doing it from

photos... Then, as they get done, puttong the pics and transcriptions on my
web site.
Thanks
Lesley Robertson

[f/fgeorge]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:29:07 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Wanda
Casker) wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.
You do realize that with a Windows emulator you can use ANY program

except those for Linux!?

[Joe Makowiec]

On 30 Mar 2005 in soc.genealogy.computing, Lesley Robertson wrote:

"Joe Makowiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

But even getting to within 10 meters has got to be better than
spending half an hour reading all the stones in a section of a
graveyard!

I'm busy transcribing a whole burial ground - and mostly doing it
from photos... Then, as they get done, puttong the pics and
transcriptions on my web site.

Actually, from what I glanced at, relative position may be far more
accurate than absolute position. So if you're reading a row of stones,
you get a position for the first stone; that may be off by ±10m.
However, when you move it to the next stone, it will show the difference
in position from the first stone as, say, 1.5m, and so on down the line.
So if you can locate the first stone, having the gps coordinates for the
remaining stones would allow you to situate them fairly accurately
relative to the first.

One of the techniques the pages I saw suggested for improving accuracy
was a technique using two GPS receivers. One is placed at a location
with known coordinates. The second is used to measure the actual
locations you're trying to place. Readings are taken at the same time,
and the reading from the first is used to correct the reading from the
second.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Lesley Robertson]

"Joe Makowiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Actually, from what I glanced at, relative position may be far more
accurate than absolute position. So if you're reading a row of stones,
you get a position for the first stone; that may be off by ±10m.
However, when you move it to the next stone, it will show the difference
in position from the first stone as, say, 1.5m, and so on down the line.
So if you can locate the first stone, having the gps coordinates for the
remaining stones would allow you to situate them fairly accurately
relative to the first.

Even just being able to get the relationship of the stones to each other
would make a big difference - there seem to have been phases when the local
stone mason liked one style or another and I end up with half a dozen
apparently identical ones...
DEFINITELY an excuse to go and wander around the electronics shops, at
least!
Lesley Robertson

One of the techniques the pages I saw suggested for improving accuracy
was a technique using two GPS receivers. One is placed at a location
with known coordinates. The second is used to measure the actual
locations you're trying to place. Readings are taken at the same time,
and the reading from the first is used to correct the reading from the
second.

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Keith Clarke]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Wanda Casker) wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

There are a lot of very out-of-date lists of Macintosh genealogy
applications on the web.

Try VersionTracker, <http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/>, for
something current, with reviews. Searching for "genealogy" on the site
produces ten hits.

hth
Keith

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:35:59 -0600, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote:


Actually Reunion is at 8.0.6 now. Those of us who use it feel that it is
the best program available on any platform.

I've tried it on the PC and found it actually unuseable bad, due
to horrific data entry problems. It appeard to be unable even
to import a simple GEDCOM without mangling names somthing awful.

Reunion is a Mac product. Whatever you tried wasn't Reunion 8, Doug.

Exactly, of course, what you would expect from the French.

Bad day, Doug? They're in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. I mean,
I don't mind someone disliking a product and telling people why,
but you have the wrong country of origin, and the wrong platform, so
I can't help but think that your opinion might not be based on this
product.

Dave Hinz

[Dave Hinz]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:03:23 GMT, f/fgeorge <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:29:07 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Wanda
Casker) wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.
You do realize that with a Windows emulator you can use ANY program
except those for Linux!?

And actually, since Virtual PC is a PC emulator, you can load a Linux virtual
machine there as well. But, any Linux program that comes with source code
(most do) builds just fine in OSX - it's a FreeBSD system, after all, a close
cousin to Linux.

Dave Hinz

[Steve W. Jackson]

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote:


Actually Reunion is at 8.0.6 now. Those of us who use it feel that it is
the best program available on any platform.

I've tried it on the PC and found it actually unuseable bad, due
to horrific data entry problems. It appeard to be unable even
to import a simple GEDCOM without mangling names somthing awful.

Exactly, of course, what you would expect from the French.

Doug McDonald

The PC version hasn't been available in a number of years. I believe
Reunion 4 was the last one. I first purchased it in early 1998 and no
PC version was available.

Not that anyone has a clue what that French reference is about...
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama

[Doug McDonald]

Steve W. Jackson wrote:

The PC version hasn't been available in a number of years. I believe
Reunion 4 was the last one. I first purchased it in early 1998 and no
PC version was available.

Not that anyone has a clue what that French reference is about...

It was about Heredis ... I got them confused.

Doug McDonald

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:56:02 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
<[email protected]> declaimed the following in
soc.genealogy.computing:

How precise is this? Would it be useful for recording inscriptions in a
burial ground, for example? That would probably need to have precision down
to +/- a couple of feet to tell neighbouring stones apart. My usual sheets
of graph paper always end up soggy, or torn........

Your best format, if you need that precision, is to first record
the location of an easily recognizable (and unchanging) landmark. Use
UTM coordinates. Then measure the other (stones) items and record them
as a delta from the landmark. Since UTM measurements are in meters, your
deltas will result in "x meters north (south), y meters east (west) of
<landmark>".

The problem is that, on the day you did your measurements, the
GPS constellation might have been biased to, say 10 yards east of actual
(unless, by some chance, you have access to either a differential GPS
receiver, or to mil-spec precise positioning signal). Come back
tomorrow, and the GPS constellation may bias readings 10 yards
north-west.

All readings taken within a short time period will tend toward
the same bias, so the difference between two readings will be quite
precise. The absolute position, however, is dependent on the GPS
constellation...

For much of the life of the GPS system, the Navstar system had
"selective availability" turned on. SA added a "dither" to the GPS
satellite clocks, resulting in readings being up to 300 meters (I'm sure
it was meters and not 300 feet) off of true. Differential GPS uses a
ground station (and special receiver) to define a "true". The ground
station "knows" its correct location, compares it to the GPS
constellation computations, and transmits corrections to nearby
receivers. Trimble (used to make hand-held GPS units for sportsmen)
makes guide units for heavy equipment -- basically they plant a "ground
station" at some defined point in a field, and the dozers/tractors have
receivers -- supposed to be capable of guiding stuff within an inch or
so...

SA was turned off a few years ago, so most civilian gear is now
good for 10-30 meters repeatability. If you need precision without
differential, some units have averaging modes (battery hog) where you
leave the GPS unit in one spot for ~6 hours...

--

==============================================================
[email protected] | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
[email protected] | Bestiaria Support Staff
==============================================================
Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/
Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[Mark]

G'Day All
I'm about to go down the "PDA" path and not sure whether to go WinCE or
Palm. I currently use 2 desktops with Windows XP and TMG (Version 6 Gold)
and realise that I could go with either WinCE handheld with "Pocket
Genealogist for TMG" or PalmOS with Gedstar Pro!! Does one have an advantage
over the other or doesn't it really matter which I go with?
Thanks
Mark (Sydney, Australia)
"Joe Makowiec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 29 Mar 2005 in soc.genealogy.computing, Steve W. Jackson wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
"mclaughl" <[email protected]> wrote:

Is this the best News Group to ask about Hand Held (PDA) techniques?

No, that would be over in soc.genealogy.computing, which I've added
to
this reply.

Oh, wow, an actual post to a.g.methods! Ahem...

In answer to the OP's question:

You have to decide between the WinCE platform (HP/Compaq iPaq, etc) and
Palm OS (Palm). I won't go into the arguments here, but I will say
that I prefer Palm. Then the choice comes down to a couple of
programs:

For Palm, there's GedStar (http://www.ghcssoftware.com/index.htm) in a
couple of versions. GedStar Pro will read directly from The Master
Genealogist® (TMG), Legacy Family Tree®, Family Tree MakerT and
Personal Ancestral File (PAF) without using a GEDCOM file, and by
GEDCOM from other genealogy programs.

Also for Palm, last I knew, PAF comes bundled with an earlier version
of GedStar basic.

For WinCE, there's Pocket Genealogist
(http://www.northernhillssoftware.com/mainframe.htm) in Basic or
Advanced. Advanced will deal directly with Legacy, TMG, RootsMagic and
Ancestral Quest dbs.

Both programs have a trial version; I have no connection with either
other than as a satisfied customer of GedStar.

It's great to be prowling a cemetery and be able to whip the PDA out of
your pocket and look up a name in your database - far easier than
lugging a laptop or carrying sheafs of paper.

To push this a little further - some PDAs now have Global Positioning
Sattelite (GPS) built in; you could take a GPS fix on a location and
record it for future reference. Wouldn't it be great to be able to re-
locate the family plot, or the old homestead, without having to go all
over the area, trying to remember what things looked like from the last
visit five years ago?

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Lesley Robertson]

"Dennis Lee Bieber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Your best format, if you need that precision, is to first record
the location of an easily recognizable (and unchanging) landmark. Use
UTM coordinates. Then measure the other (stones) items and record them
as a delta from the landmark. Since UTM measurements are in meters, your
deltas will result in "x meters north (south), y meters east (west) of
landmark>".

That is actually good enough. I don't need exact positions within the

landscape, just in relation to each other so that I can make a plot of the
burial ground that doesn't rely on odd notes saying that X is buried to the
right of Y and slightly to the left of behind Z..... It sounds as though as
long as it could be done on one day, it would work. I was really interested
in whether the system could differentiate between two gravestones standing
side by side...

If I can build a collection of readings showing that photo 1 is a stone at
this postition, and photo 2 is at that position, etc, using (perhaps) the
stone in the corner nearest the gate as the reference point, it would make
life much easier - it's an old burial ground and the stones do not stand in
neat regular rows!
Thanks,
Lesley Robertson

[Joe Makowiec]

On 31 Mar 2005 in soc.genealogy.computing, Lesley Robertson wrote:

If I can build a collection of readings showing that photo 1 is a
stone at this postition, and photo 2 is at that position, etc, using
(perhaps) the stone in the corner nearest the gate as the reference
point, it would make life much easier - it's an old burial ground
and the stones do not stand in neat regular rows!

If you want to carry this to an extreme, there are a couple of options:
- Ricoh now has a GPS-enabled (enablable?) digicam; you can slap the GPS
receiver into it, and all your pictures are geocoded
(http://www.geospatialexperts.com/Ricoh_PR012005.html)
- I'm trying to dredge up details, but there was a guy who did an aerial
photo survey of something or other using a high-end Nikon digicam; he
connected it via USB cable to a GPS receiver. The GPS data was added to
the image files, and they were used (I think) for a large-scale composite
image. This isn't the guy I was reading about, but it's one way to do
it: http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/gps_setup.htm

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Joe Makowiec]

On 31 Mar 2005 in soc.genealogy.computing, Mark wrote:

I'm about to go down the "PDA" path and not sure whether to go WinCE
or Palm. I currently use 2 desktops with Windows XP and TMG (Version
6 Gold) and realise that I could go with either WinCE handheld with
"Pocket Genealogist for TMG" or PalmOS with Gedstar Pro!! Does one
have an advantage over the other or doesn't it really matter which I
go with?

Since you're using TMG, either program will read your data files
directly. I personally like the Palm platform, but from what I've seen
you won't go far wrong with either.

I've only used GedStar (all three versions!), and I've been pleased.
Plus and Pro each have different strengths and weaknesses, and I keep
both loaded.

As to units, I have a (late, lamented) Sony Clié; unfortunately, Sony has
stopped producing them for anywhere outside the Japanese domestic market.
Maybe if we get lucky, the new Sony CEO will re-institute the line?

--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe

[Dave Hinz]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:08:46 -0600, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

Steve W. Jackson wrote:


The PC version hasn't been available in a number of years. I believe
Reunion 4 was the last one. I first purchased it in early 1998 and no
PC version was available.

Not that anyone has a clue what that French reference is about...

It was about Heredis ... I got them confused.

Ah, that makes more sense then. I figured you were talking about
something other than Reunion 8.

[Boreal]

Doug McDonald wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote:


Actually Reunion is at 8.0.6 now. Those of us who use it feel that
it is
the best program available on any platform.

I've tried it on the PC and found it actually unuseable bad, due
to horrific data entry problems. It appeard to be unable even
to import a simple GEDCOM without mangling names somthing awful.

Exactly, of course, what you would expect from the French.

Doug McDonald

Pauvre type !

[James W Anderson]

[email protected] wrote:

http://www.newsblog2005.blogspot.com << Great News Blog!

This one is not a news blog at all. Not even for genealogists.

[Nestori V Rinta]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Wanda Casker) wrote:

I've just been checking out this list. Can anyone tell me what
genealogy program will work well with a MAC? Thanks.

http://www.geditcom.com/

The best GEDCOM support anywhere!

[Christopher Jahn]

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

The question earlier today here about digital photos of documents got
me thinking. It's fine for taking a picture of the doc, but how about
making it more readable through image manipulation?

I've used it for that purpose. Playing with brightnes, contrast, and
color rations can bring out script that's virutally unreadable.


--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html

A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg.

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On 5 Apr 2005 21:21:33 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:04:33 +0200, Lesley Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...

The question earlier today here about digital photos of documents got
me thinking. It's fine for taking a picture of the doc, but how about
making it more readable through image manipulation?

I've had some luck with memorial stones, removing one colour can sometimes
help to read stones... There's also an ëmboss"filter which has helped.
Must try your Dad's method on the stones - I have some I still can't read!

Have you tried a remote flash at a sharp angle to the stone? Get some
good shadows that way.

I saw an interesting article on slashdot a few months ago, about using four
images, with a flash from four different directions (above, right, below,
and left). Merge the images together, (obviously a tripod and photoshop or
similar are needed), and the shadows give good definition. I thought at
the time it'd be nice for gravestones, but haven't had a chance to try it.

I've had good luck in photographing dark headstones by applying foamy
shaving cream, then wiping with a dry towel, leaving the white foam in
the engraved areas. Then the foam rinses away without any damage or
lasting effect to the stone.

Of course, the photoshop manipulations are needed for those shots that
you already have.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[Dave Hinz]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:00:17 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir <[email protected]> wrote:

On 5 Apr 2005 21:21:33 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

I saw an interesting article on slashdot a few months ago, about using four
images, with a flash from four different directions (above, right, below,
and left). Merge the images together, (obviously a tripod and photoshop or
similar are needed), and the shadows give good definition. I thought at
the time it'd be nice for gravestones, but haven't had a chance to try it.

I've had good luck in photographing dark headstones by applying foamy
shaving cream, then wiping with a dry towel, leaving the white foam in
the engraved areas. Then the foam rinses away without any damage or
lasting effect to the stone.

Right. Let's take a chemical made for an entirely different purpose
and apply it to a gravestone, and hopefully maybe it won't hurt anything.
Sorry, but I'm not going to condone such behavior. Next comes the
"I scrape it with a sawblade" crowd, I suppose.

Sorry, but I reject the use of _potentially_ harmful chemicals when
there are non-intrusive ways to accomplish the same thing.

Of course, the photoshop manipulations are needed for those shots that
you already have.

Or if you don't want to vandalize someone's gravestone.

[cecilia]

Dave Hinz wrote:

[...]Let's take a chemical made for an entirely different purpose
and apply it to a gravestone, and hopefully maybe it won't hurt anything.
Sorry, but I'm not going to condone such behavior. Next comes the
"I scrape it with a sawblade" crowd, I suppose.

In 1963 my mother organised the erection of a gravestone with the names
of her grandmother, father and son.

She asked for a stone that would rapidly age, to be in keeping with
those already there.

Not caring much for the black stuff put into the incised letters, she
would pick bits out each time she visited.

By about 1990, she had taken it all out.

In 1994, the names of her mother, brother, and herself were added to the
stone. My father commented that perhaps if she had left the black stuff
the letters would not have eroded so much.

By now the earlier lettering is noticeably worn.

I occasionally wonder about the negotiations round the family (my
siblings and my cousins and my aunts), not to mention the vicar, that
would be needed to get the letters recut and the black stuff replaced.

[L Covey]

Lesley Robertson wrote:

"L Covey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Lesley Robertson wrote:

I've had some luck with memorial stones, removing one colour can
sometimes help to read stones... There's also an ëmboss"filter which has
helped.
Must try your Dad's method on the stones - I have some I still can't
read!
Lesley Robertson



Are you speaking of "photos" of memorial stones or the stones themselves.
I know this is an odd question, but just want to clarify.


Photos thereof... removing a colour from the actual stone would be
vandalism.
Lesley Robertson


Yes, of course. I guess I was just tired and am battling a cold. The

brain just wasn't up to it.

Thanks,
Lani

[Brock Way]

Dear Mr. Jonson,

No, what I am saying is that bacterial growth on a
substance requires more than the mere presence of a
metabolizable substrate in proximity. This is the
issue of bioavailability. So the issue is not growth
in the emulsion, but rather the growth of bacteria in
the RESIDUE of an emulsion as a transitive state, if
it were to exist.

Either the residue is still sufficiently hydrated to
support growth, in which case the major component
(water, in this case) of said emulsion is efficacious
in partitioning from the stationary phase, or the
residue is NOT sufficiently hydrated, and thus any
substrate is not bioavailable. In either case, there
would be no bacterial injury to the stone.

For most forms of biologic insult to stone, and even
for many forms of chemical weathering, shaving cream
would serve as a preservative (not an agent of
destruction), since it would protect the stone from
what would otherwise be an even greater insult from
water (and this is even true of the pH argument that
so many people TRY to make); via freeze-thaw cycles,
hydration, increased bioavailability of nutriments,
etc.

This is all rather academic, though, since there will
be no residue after a quick rinse anyway.

Brock Way


--- Per Harald Jonson
<[email protected]> wrote:

Brock Waywrote:
Furthermore, shaving cream is an emulsion, and
bacteria grow in aqueous solutions or suspension,
or
in adherent conditions, none of which would apply
to
shaving cream residue, even if there were any.


Are you saying bacteria can not grow in emulsions?

Per Harald

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Lesley Robertson]

"Brock Way" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dear Mr. Jonson,

No, what I am saying is that bacterial growth on a
substance requires more than the mere presence of a
metabolizable substrate in proximity. This is the
issue of bioavailability. So the issue is not growth
in the emulsion, but rather the growth of bacteria in
the RESIDUE of an emulsion as a transitive state, if
it were to exist.

The bacteria will grow in water droplets on the surface of, and in the
emulsion.

Either the residue is still sufficiently hydrated to
support growth, in which case the major component
(water, in this case) of said emulsion is efficacious
in partitioning from the stationary phase, or the
residue is NOT sufficiently hydrated, and thus any
substrate is not bioavailable. In either case, there
would be no bacterial injury to the stone.

Rubbish.

For most forms of biologic insult to stone, and even
for many forms of chemical weathering, shaving cream
would serve as a preservative (not an agent of
destruction), since it would protect the stone from
what would otherwise be an even greater insult from
water (and this is even true of the pH argument that
so many people TRY to make); via freeze-thaw cycles,
hydration, increased bioavailability of nutriments,
etc.

Wrong.

This is all rather academic, though, since there will
be no residue after a quick rinse anyway.

Have you ever tried to get greasy things off a surface?

Lesley Robertson

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:36:21 +0200, Lesley Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:

"Brock Way" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Dear Mr. Jonson,

No, what I am saying is that bacterial growth on a
substance requires more than the mere presence of a
metabolizable substrate in proximity. This is the
issue of bioavailability. So the issue is not growth
in the emulsion, but rather the growth of bacteria in
the RESIDUE of an emulsion as a transitive state, if
it were to exist.

The bacteria will grow in water droplets on the surface of, and in the
emulsion.

Right. What he's forgetting, perhaps, is that many tombstones are
stored outside, where weather and condensation exist.

Either the residue is still sufficiently hydrated to
support growth, in which case the major component
(water, in this case) of said emulsion is efficacious
in partitioning from the stationary phase, or the
residue is NOT sufficiently hydrated, and thus any
substrate is not bioavailable. In either case, there
would be no bacterial injury to the stone.

Rubbish.

Exactly. First he says "it's only a problem if it's wet"
and now he says "it's not a problem either way".

For most forms of biologic insult to stone, and even
for many forms of chemical weathering, shaving cream
would serve as a preservative (not an agent of
destruction), since it would protect the stone from
what would otherwise be an even greater insult from
water (and this is even true of the pH argument that
so many people TRY to make); via freeze-thaw cycles,
hydration, increased bioavailability of nutriments,
etc.

Wrong.

This is all rather academic, though, since there will
be no residue after a quick rinse anyway.

Have you ever tried to get greasy things off a surface?

Sure, you rinse it once and "there will be no residue". Or so
he says. Clearly, he's not going to be swayed by logic and facts
if he is going to claim that "a quick rinse is all it takes" to
remove all residue of his vandalism.

[Brock Way]

Sure, you rinse it once and "there will be no
residue". Or so
he says. Clearly, he's not going to be swayed by
logic and facts
if he is going to claim that "a quick rinse is all
it takes" to
remove all residue of his vandalism.

Hardly. It is the logic and facts which leads me to
the position I have. This is as opposed to the view
opposite, which is held religiously, in spite of the
complete lack of evidence to support it.

Your position isn't made any stronger by referring to
my position using false depiction and inflammatory
language.

Let's see some evidence to support your original
assertion.

Brock Way





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:21:38 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

Sure, you rinse it once and "there will be no
residue". Or so
he says. Clearly, he's not going to be swayed by
logic and facts
if he is going to claim that "a quick rinse is all
it takes" to
remove all residue of his vandalism.

Hardly. It is the logic and facts which leads me to
the position I have. This is as opposed to the view
opposite, which is held religiously, in spite of the
complete lack of evidence to support it.

You are claiming that "a quick rinse removes all residue".
I am challenging your statement as both wrong and as
oversimplified.

Your position isn't made any stronger by referring to
my position using false depiction and inflammatory
language.

Are you now saying you didn't claim that a quick rinse
removes all residue from the stone?

Let's see some evidence to support your original
assertion.

You're the one saying "the facts are clear", yet who is
not providing cites. The lipid issue is still open -
care to show how it doesn't apply? Also, tell me again
how emulsions are always sterile?

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:48:02 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

Moreover, that shaving cream comes off surfaces can be
visually determined by shaving cream and a mirror.
Shaving cream will come off a tombstone with even
greater ease, since water will always have a smaller
molecular diameter than anything in the emulsion, and
none of the components have greater affinity for the
stationary phase than they do for the mobile phase.

Last I checked, tombstones are more porous than a mirror.
Other than that, great theory there, sparky. I mean Doc.

[Brock Way]

Have you ever tried to get greasy things off a
surface?
Lesley Robertson

e·mul·sion (ĭ-mŭl'shən)
n.
A suspension of small globules of one liquid in a
second liquid with which the first will not mix: an
emulsion of oil in vinegar.

Now that you are up to speed on the nature of
emulsions, I think you should be able to see that
greasy things on a surface is not the issue. The issue
is shaving cream on a surface.

Moreover, that shaving cream comes off surfaces can be
visually determined by shaving cream and a mirror.
Shaving cream will come off a tombstone with even
greater ease, since water will always have a smaller
molecular diameter than anything in the emulsion, and
none of the components have greater affinity for the
stationary phase than they do for the mobile phase.

I enjoyed the two citations you provided last time. I
think the thing about them that I enjoyed most was
their comprehensive lack of any mention of shaving
cream anywhere.

Brock Way




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:13:18 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

--- Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:48:02 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way

Last I checked, tombstones are more porous than a
mirror.
Other than that, great theory there, sparky. I mean
Doc.

...which is the *whole point* of making mention of
molecular diameters - demonstrating that it is
porosity independent.

Now you propose that there are no porousities in a tombstone
smaller than the molecular size of the stone?

Way to miss the whole point, other than that, well I
guess there really isn't anything besides you missing
the point.

You stated that it's a proven fact that shaving cream doesn't
harm tombstones. I keep not seeing you provide a cite for that.
Without some evidence, "some guy who claims to have a PhD on
the Internet" doesn't outweigh anything I've read to date.

As I said earlier - maybe you're right. Please show the rest of
us the evidence that has made you so convinced that you are.
"Because I said so" doesn't cut it, despite your repeated use
of that tactic.

In the meantime, if I see you putting shaving cream on any stones
of _my_ family, be prepared for a confrontation.

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:25:41 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

Also, tell me
again how emulsions are always sterile?

Reading comprehension really isn't your thing, is it?

Nor is quoting or citing yours, I see.

You said the evidence is clear that shaving cream is safe for
tombstones. Please post a credible cite backing up that
statement.

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:46:33 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:
- I wrote, but once again Brock way can't bother to keep the attributions
intact for, -

You stated that it's a proven fact that shaving
cream doesn't harm tombstones.

I didn't say that. I said all the evidence shows one
thing.

Show us that evidence.

But you have yet to produce any evidence with
which to test that claim.

You're the one acting all superior and claiming you know more
than the rest of us. Show us what you're basing that on.
Playing the "I won't show you the evidence I talked about saying
I'm right until you show me how I'm wrong" isn't gonna cut it here.
You're the one saying that conventional wisdom is wrong. Back it
up.

That is why I am waiting on
you to produce evidence. Once you produce evidence, I
will show you that 100% of it runs counter to your
claim.

Why not actually show us what you claim backs up your statements?
Wouldn't that save several steps?

But you haven't produced any evidence yet, so I
am still waiting.
^^^^^^^

I think you misspelled "trolling" just there.

In the meantime, if I see you putting shaving cream
on any stones
of _my_ family, be prepared for a confrontation.

And presumptuous too (not surprisingly). I don't put
shaving cream on tombstones.

Yawn. Yup, it's a troll. Provide data, or go away. Both would
be fine too.

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 18:51:14 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

Nor is quoting or citing yours, I see.

You said the evidence is clear that shaving cream is
safe for
tombstones. Please post a credible cite backing up
that statement.

I guess it is too easy to point out that you criticize
my quoting, and in the self-same post, you claim I
said "the evidence is clear", which I did not. You
have made the claim that I have said this more than
once, and each time it is false.

I'm not into word-games, Brock, apparently you are.
Maybe you'll find someone who cares more about word games
than the topic, but I'm not that person.

You claimed that shaving cream is safe for tombstones.
Please provide data to back that up.

Go back and re-read the posts, and when you understand
them, come back and once again begin ducking the fact
that you can produce no evidence whatsoever to support
your position.

You're the one challenging my statement that I'd rather use
optical means than chemical means to read a stone. You're
claiming it's safe, or whatever particular words you used.
You're saying it's not a problem to use.

Show us evidence to back up your claim.

[Brock Way]

--- Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 16:48:02 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way
[email protected]> wrote:

Moreover, that shaving cream comes off surfaces
can be
visually determined by shaving cream and a mirror.
Shaving cream will come off a tombstone with even
greater ease, since water will always have a
smaller
molecular diameter than anything in the emulsion,
and
none of the components have greater affinity for
the
stationary phase than they do for the mobile
phase.

Last I checked, tombstones are more porous than a
mirror.
Other than that, great theory there, sparky. I mean
Doc.

....which is the *whole point* of making mention of
molecular diameters - demonstrating that it is
porosity independent.

Way to miss the whole point, other than that, well I
guess there really isn't anything besides you missing
the point.

Brock Way



__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest

[Brock Way]

Also, tell me
again how emulsions are always sterile?

Reading comprehension really isn't your thing, is it?
I never said this a first time, so it is nonsensical
to request that I explain it subsequently.

Let's review. Per Harald asked:

"Are you saying bacteria can not grow in emulsions?"

My reply was:

"Dear Mr. Jonson,

No, what I am saying is that bacterial growth on a
substance requires more than the mere presence of a
metabolizable substrate in proximity."

Surely I needn't explain to you what is meant by the
word "no", but you have surprised me before.

If the word "no" is confusing to you, then perhaps I
can bring you up to speed beginning with smaller
words.

Brock Way





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com

[Brock Way]

Now you propose that there are no porousities in a
tombstone
smaller than the molecular size of the stone?

Good grief, logic really isn't your strong suit. The
point is that regardless of the porosity, the pore
will always be more available to water than it is
anything else in the emulsion, since water has a
smaller molecular diameter.

Let me say it another way, so that even you will be
able to understand it:

Very porous: water has smaller molecular diameter,
therefore greater penetrance.

Not very porous: water has smaller molecular diameter,
therefore greater penetrance.

You stated that it's a proven fact that shaving
cream doesn't harm tombstones.

I didn't say that. I said all the evidence shows one
thing. But you have yet to produce any evidence with
which to test that claim. That is why I am waiting on
you to produce evidence. Once you produce evidence, I
will show you that 100% of it runs counter to your
claim. But you haven't produced any evidence yet, so I
am still waiting.

In the meantime, if I see you putting shaving cream
on any stones
of _my_ family, be prepared for a confrontation.

And presumptuous too (not surprisingly). I don't put
shaving cream on tombstones.

Brock Way

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 19:09:32 +0000 (UTC), Brock Way <[email protected]> wrote:

You're the one saying that conventional wisdom is
wrong.

Please. Shaving cream harming tombstones is the
"conventional wisdom" now?

Please show us how shaving cream on tombstones is safe.
You're the one claiming it is. You posted, quote:
"There is no evidence that shaving cream causes any
harm to tombstones, and *ALL* the evidence is to the contrary."

Please show us the 'evidence to the contrary' that you claim exists.

[Brock Way]

Nor is quoting or citing yours, I see.

You said the evidence is clear that shaving cream is
safe for
tombstones. Please post a credible cite backing up
that statement.

I guess it is too easy to point out that you criticize
my quoting, and in the self-same post, you claim I
said "the evidence is clear", which I did not. You
have made the claim that I have said this more than
once, and each time it is false.

Go back and re-read the posts, and when you understand
them, come back and once again begin ducking the fact
that you can produce no evidence whatsoever to support
your position.

Brock Way





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[Brock Way]

You're the one saying that conventional wisdom is
wrong.

Please. Shaving cream harming tombstones is the
"conventional wisdom" now?

What's next...'breathing on the stone harms them' is
the conventional wisdom?

The conventional wisdom is that shaving cream doesn't
do anything to stones. Your position is the contrary
one.

So back up your vacuous claim, or keep ducking.

Here is how its gone so far - -

Dave: conventional wisdom says that my great
grandmother is a Cherokee Princess, and an
illegitimate daughter of King Guillaume III.

Brock: Prove it.

Dave: Prove that she isn't!!

You must have an "interesting" pedigree, if this is
the logic you use in construction of your family tree.

Brock Way


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Brock Way]

You're the one claiming it is. You posted, quote:
"There is no evidence that shaving cream causes any
harm to tombstones, and *ALL* the evidence is to the
contrary."

Please show us the 'evidence to the contrary' that
you claim exists.

I already posted my example of the 5,000 times I have
incidentally "shaving creamed" my bathroom sink. And
this:

A. Is the only (control v. experimental) evidence of
which I am aware, and thus comprises 100%.

B. Answers the question about whether I had ever
shaved or not, had someone been paying attention.

C. Makes one wonder how my bathroom sink knows it not
a tombstone.

Brock Way




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

[Dave Mayall]

"Brock Way" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Dear Mr. Jonson,

No, what I am saying is that bacterial growth on a
substance requires more than the mere presence of a
metabolizable substrate in proximity.

No, what you are saying is that *you* have decided that what *you* want
*now* is far more important than anything else in the future.

Using shaving foam is harmful to the lichens which grow on the face of
stones. Killing off the lichens exposes the face of the stone to weather
damage.

The plain facts are that no matter how much you rant about it, using shaving
foam on a memorial will shorten its life.

[John Ellingsworth]

http://www.gravestonestudies.org/preservation.htm

Why can't I use shaving cream to highlight inscriptions on difficult to
read stones?

Our professional conservators tell us it is definitely not a good idea
to use shaving cream on porous gravestones because there are chemicals,
greasy emollients, in shaving cream that are sticky and very difficult
to remove from the stone with a simple washing. Indeed, even with
vigorous scrubbing and lots of rinsing, the cream fills in the pores of
a porous stone and cannot all be removed. The result of leaving it
there is that in time it may discolor or damage the stone.

Instead, use a mirror to shine sunlight across the face of a stone,
making the lettering stand out. For an explanatory leaflet on this
technique, see Store Directory, Kits, "Photographing Gravestones” and
"Making Photographic Records of Gravestones." They may be ordered
separately from the kits. Always prefer a non-invasive method on
gravestones just as we do on medical tests on our own bodies.


John
http://mountmoriahcemetery.org