FTM2006

[CM Research Services]

FTM2005 claimed that it would run on Win98, but when push came to
shove (or more accurately, when CD came to insertion) it actually
only runs with specific versions of IE (and above).

Does anyone know if the same (petty?) restrictions are in place for
FTM2006?
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services
Opinions expressed ARE those of this facility... 'till I'm fired!

[Hugh Watkins]

CM Research Services wrote:

FTM2005 claimed that it would run on Win98, but when push came to
shove (or more accurately, when CD came to insertion) it actually
only runs with specific versions of IE (and above).

Does anyone know if the same (petty?) restrictions are in place for
FTM2006?

Yes

but not petty
just
not compatable with antique systems no longer supported by Microsoft
too bad

you could use PAF of course

Hugh W

[CM Research Services]

Once upon a time, Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> wrote

CM Research Services wrote:
FTM2005 claimed that it would run on Win98, but when push came to
shove (or more accurately, when CD came to insertion) it actually
only runs with specific versions of IE (and above).
Does anyone know if the same (petty?) restrictions are in place for
FTM2006?

Yes

but not petty
just
not compatable with antique systems no longer supported by Microsoft

I think it's a little narrow-minded for a genealogy program to
hard-limit its installation based on an internet browser spec.

I want to do genealogy with my genealogy program, and browse the
web with my browser. Not the other way round. I'd also like the
freedom that my genealogy program doesn't specify which browser
I need to install, when it's not even needed to run. Probably.

And five years old for a PC, even these days, is not antique.
This machine runs 24/7 churning out either SETI or prime numbers
and has few tantrums, hangs or BSODs. Is behaving modestly,
respectfully and when required the mark of an antique?
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services
Opinions expressed ARE those of this facility... 'till I'm fired!

[Dave Hinz]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:51:31 +0100, CM Research Services <[email protected]> wrote:

Once upon a time, Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> wrote
CM Research Services wrote:

Yes >>but not petty >>just
not compatable with antique systems no longer supported by Microsoft

I think it's a little narrow-minded for a genealogy program to
hard-limit its installation based on an internet browser spec.

Yes. The developers choose to use a subset of features which
artificially limit their customer base.

I want to do genealogy with my genealogy program, and browse the
web with my browser. Not the other way round. I'd also like the
freedom that my genealogy program doesn't specify which browser
I need to install, when it's not even needed to run. Probably.

Good reason to avoid that product then.

And five years old for a PC, even these days, is not antique.
This machine runs 24/7 churning out either SETI or prime numbers
and has few tantrums, hangs or BSODs. Is behaving modestly,
respectfully and when required the mark of an antique?

Well, at some point Microsoft stops supporting older OS's, that's just
the way it goes. But, vendors who insist their customers have latest &
greatest, _especially_ when it's done arbitrarily and when everyone else
seems to get the job done without doing the same thing, then they're
going to lose customers because of it.

[Robert Heiling]

CM Research Services wrote:

FTM2005 claimed that it would run on Win98, but when push came to
shove (or more accurately, when CD came to insertion) it actually
only runs with specific versions of IE (and above).

Does anyone know if the same (petty?) restrictions are in place for
FTM2006?

I'm getting deja vu over this as it seems we went through this whole
business over FTM2005 in October 2004 and were never told about the
outcome. It's a bit unclear as to why you don't simply install a recent
version of MSIE and get on with it.

Bob

[CM Research Services]

Once upon a time, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote

I'm getting deja vu over this as it seems we went through this whole
business over FTM2005 in October 2004 and were never told about the
outcome. It's a bit unclear as to why you don't simply install a recent
version of MSIE and get on with it.

Partially principle, mostly because I don't use MSIE (I use Firefox)
so I don't see why I should spend time and effort downloading some
bug-ridden security leak, er, software upgrade, that I don't need.
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services
Opinions expressed ARE those of this facility... 'till I'm fired!

[Gjest]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:51:31 +0100, CM Research Services
<[email protected]> wrote:

Once upon a time, Hugh Watkins <[email protected]> wrote
CM Research Services wrote:
FTM2005 claimed that it would run on Win98, but when push came to
shove (or more accurately, when CD came to insertion) it actually
only runs with specific versions of IE (and above).
Does anyone know if the same (petty?) restrictions are in place for
FTM2006?

Yes

but not petty
just
not compatable with antique systems no longer supported by Microsoft

I think it's a little narrow-minded for a genealogy program to
hard-limit its installation based on an internet browser spec.

I want to do genealogy with my genealogy program, and browse the
web with my browser. Not the other way round. I'd also like the
freedom that my genealogy program doesn't specify which browser
I need to install, when it's not even needed to run. Probably.

And five years old for a PC, even these days, is not antique.
This machine runs 24/7 churning out either SETI or prime numbers
and has few tantrums, hangs or BSODs. Is behaving modestly,
respectfully and when required the mark of an antique?

FTM2055 runs (AFAICT) on my 98SE with IE at 6.0.2800.1100615 plus
fixes. My 500Mhz Pentium III is 6 years old, delivered with 98SE
installed. I keep windows up to date. Have you tried to update your
98SE using Microsoft Update. You will find IE6 and fixes and security
updates will be installed. Don't know about FTM2006.

--
cerberus

[john]

CM Research Services wrote:

FTM2005 claimed that it would run on Win98, but when push came to
shove (or more accurately, when CD came to insertion) it actually
only runs with specific versions of IE (and above).

Does anyone know if the same (petty?) restrictions are in place for
FTM2006?

If you'd bothered to look at the FTM2006 web site you would have found:
System Requirements
Component Minimum Requirements
• Windows 98/ME/XP
• For Windows 98/ME; a 300 MHz Pentium, or compatible, processor
and 32 MB of memory (RAM)
• For Windows XP; a 333 MHz Pentium, or compatible processor, and
128 MB of memory (RAM)
• Super VGA (800 x 600) video adapter (1024x768 recommended)
• Hi-Color (16-bit) color quality
• A CD-ROM drive (for installation only; to use the CD back up
features, a CDR/CDRW is required.)
• 150 MB disk space
• Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or later. (A full install package
for IE 6 is provided if your system does not already have it.)

I suspect it just uses some of the IE components, as do many other
programs. When you eventually upgrade to XP you will be stuck with IE
components on your PC whether you like it or not.

You can remove the IE icon so no one can use it and continue to use Firefox.

[Robert Heiling]

CM Research Services wrote:

Once upon a time, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote

I'm getting deja vu over this as it seems we went through this whole
business over FTM2005 in October 2004 and were never told about the
outcome. It's a bit unclear as to why you don't simply install a recent
version of MSIE and get on with it.

Partially principle, mostly because I don't use MSIE (I use Firefox)
so I don't see why I should spend time and effort downloading some
bug-ridden security leak, er, software upgrade, that I don't need.

I believe that's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. That
Win98 came with MSIE in it and an older version at that. Just because
you don't use it doesn't change the fact that it is embedded within your
operating system. A system that I have here runs Win98 (first edition)
and has the latest MSIE. It also has Firefox (the system default),
Mozilla, & Netscape for browsers and Thunderbird for mail & news. We use
what we chose and they are all there in the toolchest in case of any
need.

You've already gotten some good advice here. Using MSIE
(Start-Programs-Internet Explorer), go to: http://update.microsoft.com/
and get all the updates. It's your choice, but we can't help you if you
refuse to follow advice.

Bob

[CM Research Services]

Once upon a time, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote

You've already gotten some good advice here. Using MSIE
(Start-Programs-Internet Explorer), go to: http://update.microsoft.com/
and get all the updates. It's your choice, but we can't help you if you
refuse to follow advice.

Funnily enough, the security and privacy advice from others is to
drop IE, and theirs wasn't patronising...

I accept that the MS position is to force their browser onto people
who don't want it, but I choose not to use or update it. My question
related to operability of a genealogy package I now have information
about, so can make informed decisions. And stick to its fully working
predecessor.
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services
Opinions expressed ARE those of this facility... 'till I'm fired!

[CM Research Services]

Once upon a time, john <[email protected]> wrote

CM Research Services wrote:
FTM2005 claimed that it would run on Win98, but when push came to
shove (or more accurately, when CD came to insertion) it actually
only runs with specific versions of IE (and above).
Does anyone know if the same (petty?) restrictions are in place for
FTM2006?

If you'd bothered to look at the FTM2006 web site you would have found:
System Requirements

I was assured for FTM2005 that although IE6 was a "requirement", it
wasn't actually needed for main operation, therefore on a IE5 system
I'd have no problem. Of course, that was not the case. I was attempting
to query the same issue again, though with little hope.
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services
Opinions expressed ARE those of this facility... 'till I'm fired!

[Julie]

That's your choice. Just stop complaining - we are sick of hearing it.

Julie

"CM Research Services" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Once upon a time, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote
You've already gotten some good advice here. Using MSIE
(Start-Programs-Internet Explorer), go to: http://update.microsoft.com/
and get all the updates. It's your choice, but we can't help you if you
refuse to follow advice.

Funnily enough, the security and privacy advice from others is to
drop IE, and theirs wasn't patronising...

I accept that the MS position is to force their browser onto people
who don't want it, but I choose not to use or update it. My question
related to operability of a genealogy package I now have information
about, so can make informed decisions. And stick to its fully working
predecessor.
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services
Opinions expressed ARE those of this facility... 'till I'm fired!

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2005-10-09, CM Research Services <[email protected]> wrote:

Once upon a time, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote
You've already gotten some good advice here. Using MSIE
(Start-Programs-Internet Explorer), go to: http://update.microsoft.com/
and get all the updates. It's your choice, but we can't help you if you
refuse to follow advice.

Funnily enough, the security and privacy advice from others is to
drop IE, and theirs wasn't patronising...

That security and privacy advice was/is good advice.
Actually, even better advice would be to avoid using any of
Microsoft Corp.'s virus runtime environment product suite.
There are alternative operating systems and application
programs out there.

I accept that the MS position is to force their browser onto people
who don't want it, but I choose not to use or update it. My question
related to operability of a genealogy package I now have information
about, so can make informed decisions. And stick to its fully working
predecessor.

I applaud your decision to avoid the IE malware magnet. The
question that comes to my mind is that if some vendor of
genealogy software refuses to make their product operable in
an environment consistent with good security and privacy
practices, might it not be time to avoid using such product
from such a genealogy software vendor.

If you choose to use Gramps (genealogy program) on a Linux
platform, I believe there are at least two of us Linux users
in this newsgroup. I would certainly be willing to help to
the extent I could. I have found the other Linux user I
know frequents this newsgroup to also be quite helpful.

Best wishes in finding a solution that works for you.

Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert M. Riches Jr." <[email protected]> writes:

On 2005-10-09, CM Research Services <[email protected]> wrote:
snip

I applaud your decision to avoid the IE malware magnet. The
question that comes to my mind is that if some vendor of
genealogy software refuses to make their product operable in
an environment consistent with good security and privacy
practices, might it not be time to avoid using such product
from such a genealogy software vendor.

If you choose to use Gramps (genealogy program) on a Linux
platform, I believe there are at least two of us Linux users
in this newsgroup. I would certainly be willing to help to
the extent I could. I have found the other Linux user I
know frequents this newsgroup to also be quite helpful.

Best wishes in finding a solution that works for you.

Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

In point of fact, it need not be Linux for GRAMPS - it can be any of the
open source unix-like operating systems. I run GRAMPS on FreeBSD and am in the
process of moving it across to NetBSD "just for giggles". As well, there's
FTree, which is pretty good for visualizing pedigrees and for data entry but
is otherwise only so-so: no reports, no bells'n'whistles. As I've indicated
before, my personal favorite is phpGedView; when coupled with GDBI, pGV is
remarkably easy to use, has access to all the LifeLines reports and, on its
own, has a pretty good stable of reports and charts. Downside of pGV is that
is must be run in conjunction with a webserver - it isn't standalone. I don't
find that much of a downside for myself - I'm a UNIX systems administrater in
my "spare time" <seg> - so am able to play with things until they work the
way I expect'em to.

Anyway, GRAMPS on any of the open source unix-like operating systems is a
piece of cake and worth a look if you aren't hung up on Gates' universal
computer virus.

Bob Melson
Swell Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation." Thomas Reed
-----

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On 2005-10-10, Robert Melson <[email protected]> wrote:

In point of fact, it need not be Linux for GRAMPS - it can be any of the
open source unix-like operating systems. I run GRAMPS on FreeBSD and am in the
process of moving it across to NetBSD "just for giggles". As well, there's
FTree, which is pretty good for visualizing pedigrees and for data entry but
is otherwise only so-so: no reports, no bells'n'whistles. As I've indicated
before, my personal favorite is phpGedView; when coupled with GDBI, pGV is
remarkably easy to use, has access to all the LifeLines reports and, on its
own, has a pretty good stable of reports and charts. Downside of pGV is that
is must be run in conjunction with a webserver - it isn't standalone. I don't
find that much of a downside for myself - I'm a UNIX systems administrater in
my "spare time" <seg> - so am able to play with things until they work the
way I expect'em to.

Anyway, GRAMPS on any of the open source unix-like operating systems is a
piece of cake and worth a look if you aren't hung up on Gates' universal
computer virus.

Thanks for the pointers to those other genealogy programs.
I had heard of LifeLines, but those others were new to me.

Robert Riches
[email protected]
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Andrew W Applegarth]

CM Research Services <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

Once upon a time, Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote
You've already gotten some good advice here. Using MSIE
(Start-Programs-Internet Explorer), go to: http://update.microsoft.com/
and get all the updates. It's your choice, but we can't help you if you
refuse to follow advice.

Funnily enough, the security and privacy advice from others is to
drop IE, and theirs wasn't patronising...

I accept that the MS position is to force their browser onto people
who don't want it, but I choose not to use or update it. My question
related to operability of a genealogy package I now have information
about, so can make informed decisions. And stick to its fully working
predecessor.

Even if you choose not to use it for web browsing, you should keep
Internet Explorer fully updated. It's bad enough that there are Windows
components and third party software that silently use pieces of IE in the
background, but you don't want them using an old version with several known
exploits active. Unless you know how to completely remove it, you better
keep it current...

- Andrew W Applegarth

[Warren and Paula Jo Merri]

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.....

Headline: Symantec: Mozilla browsers more vulnerable than IE

Story beginning: Mozilla Web browsers are potentially more vulnerable to
attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a Symantec report

web story: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5873273.html?tag=nl



Headline: Symantec: Fix in for Firefox bugs

Story beginning: Mozilla has released an update to Firefox to fix several
serious security flaws, including a recently disclosed bug that could let
attackers secretly run malicious software on PCs.

web story: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5875797.html


Since it was first released not long ago Firefox is now up to version 1.0.7
because of several release to fix bugs and security holes in the software.
Not that either one is better or worse than the other, just that everyone
goes around blowing the golden horn touting how one is SOOOOO much better
than the other. Not true, its not possible to write perfect software yet.
Just took a while for people to start using it and the flaws of Firefox come
out too...... You might just as well use whichever one you want to because
of how YOU LIKE IT and just keep up on the updates as new problems are
discovered in BOTH of them.

If anyone thinks they are now running (or will ever run) a browser that is
impervious to problems or attack they are deluding themselves.




"CM Research Services" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Partially principle, mostly because I don't use MSIE (I use Firefox)
so I don't see why I should spend time and effort downloading some
bug-ridden security leak, er, software upgrade, that I don't need.
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services
Opinions expressed ARE those of this facility... 'till I'm fired!

[Herman Viaene]

Warren and Paula Jo Merrill wrote:

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.....

Headline: Symantec: Mozilla browsers more vulnerable than IE

Story beginning: Mozilla Web browsers are potentially more vulnerable to
attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a Symantec report

snip a lot...

If anyone thinks they are now running (or will ever run) a browser that is
impervious to problems or attack they are deluding themselves.

That's true of course, but.....
Try the following: start from a clean system take IE as delivered on your
Win installation and do a 10 min google search and consulting.
The quit IE and start Adaware to scan end note the number of items it finds
(they are not all deadly...) and clear them
Then start Mozilla (or Firefox) as delivered from the site, and do the same
operations as above. Fat chances Adaware wil find nothing.
That's reason enough for me to leave IE alone.

Herman Viaene

[Dave Hinz]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:44:23 +1000, Julie <[email protected]> wrote:

That's your choice. Just stop complaining - we are sick of hearing it.

Julie,

Killfiles are very useful if you want to ignore a particular person or
thread. Telling someone to stop talking is significantly less
effective.

[Dave Hinz]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 22:30:17 -0600, Warren and Paula Jo Merrill <[email protected]> wrote:

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.....

Headline: Symantec: Mozilla browsers more vulnerable than IE

The raw count of vulnerabilities they have fixed, yes, is higher. The
significance and exploitation of those vulnerabilities, however, is
immensely lower.

Story beginning: Mozilla Web browsers are potentially more vulnerable to
attack than Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a Symantec report
web story: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5873273.html?tag=nl

Symantec is whoring their product. They used to be reputable.

Headline: Symantec: Fix in for Firefox bugs

Story beginning: Mozilla has released an update to Firefox to fix several
serious security flaws, including a recently disclosed bug that could let
attackers secretly run malicious software on PCs.

web story: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5875797.html

....and zdnet has always been a microsoft apologist of an organization...

You really need to evaluate your sources a bit more carefully before
accepting what they say as golden.

Since it was first released not long ago Firefox is now up to version 1.0.7
because of several release to fix bugs and security holes in the software.
Not that either one is better or worse than the other,

IE is _significantly worse_ than Firefox. The vulnerabilities in IE are
proven, frequent, and severe. The vulnerabilities that firefox fixes
are generally caught by firefox _before_ they're exploited in the wild.
This is a important distinction, and one which merely counting bugs and
updates doesn't address.

If anyone thinks they are now running (or will ever run) a browser that is
impervious to problems or attack they are deluding themselves.

I'm just guessing, but I bet you're one of those people who say "viruses
aren't around for Mac, Linux, and Unix because they're not as popular",
rather than understanding the fundamental design differences which make
viruses impossible there, right?

[CM Research Services]

Once upon a time, Andrew W Applegarth <[email protected]> wrote

Even if you choose not to use it for web browsing, you should keep
Internet Explorer fully updated. It's bad enough that there are Windows
components and third party software that silently use pieces of IE in the
background, but you don't want them using an old version with several known
exploits active. Unless you know how to completely remove it, you better
keep it current...

Fair point - though IE has to ask permission to get through the firewall
every time it wants to...
--
Andrew Brydon
CM Research Services

[Bradley Reed]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 01:59:37 GMT, Robert Melson wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert M. Riches Jr." <[email protected]> writes:

In point of fact, it need not be Linux for GRAMPS - it can be any of the
open source unix-like operating systems. I run GRAMPS on FreeBSD and am in the
process of moving it across to NetBSD "just for giggles". As well, there's
FTree, which is pretty good for visualizing pedigrees and for data entry but
is otherwise only so-so: no reports, no bells'n'whistles.

Actually the newest version of FTree does have some reporting
capabilities. They aren't up to the standards of Gramps or most of
the windows apps, but they are there now. I actually really like
data entry in FTree, and love the always visible pegigree tree, but
I usually import my data into Gramps to make a report.

Anyway, GRAMPS on any of the open source unix-like operating systems is a
piece of cake and worth a look if you aren't hung up on Gates' universal
computer virus.

Gramps is improving every time I recompile a new version. I
definitely recommend it for people in the linux/unix camps.

Brad