Family Tree Maker to be pensioned off. NOT!

Hello Peter, I just don't like the look of Family Historian. I can see how to use it and looked at the free download. It's just me I think and I am sure it works perfectly well. I prefer Legacy, whose free version I used before FTM, and recently I played with RootsMagic and liked that.
If I wanted to upgrade from FTM 1012, without the sync function, there is no reason not to try another programme. I was told 2014 was not much better and obviously wouldn't buy it now.

 

I think one is on a hiding to nothing to ask why people dislike a new genealogy program. They just do because in one way or another it does not compare with a much loved previous program. I can truthfully say I have tried many over time and most get abandoned for one reason or another. I disliked FTM from the start and only when I realised the value of being able to sync my Ancestry Tree, did I take to it although I never enthused. I used it because it quickly duplicated my Tree on my PC which I deemed a bonus.

Mostly first loved Genealogy programs are treasured including those that go way back and work on nothing beyond Vista. (The solution = keep Vista). Every program will have its followers; some will be staunch enthusiasts, others less so and others will not touch it with a barge pole. In my eyes as long as a program has nothing to do with 'My Heritage' -by the front door or back - I am perfectly prepared to give it a try. If I do not like the cut of its jib then it goes; but one day, who knows, perhaps I will take to another and no doubt defend it to the hilt.

 

Chrissie,

You should be able to transfer your FTM file with media to RM on your new computer OK. I would think you would have to first transfer your FTM programme and files, although it may be possible just to have a copy of your gedcom with media work on your new computer.

Once you have FTM copied to your new computer, make a gedcom from the File, Export area of your tree and export the 'entire' file. Then open RM, close any previous file then select File, Import, Other, Gedcom. Give the file a name and that's it.
I have included a link from a blog which explains the process.

http://www.geneamusings.com/2013/11/transferring-media-files-between_26.html

If I were you, I would keep the sync feature between FTM and Ancestry off when doing this, just for safety's sake.

 

Here's a video clip on importing an FTM file to RootsMagic.



Oops! I thought I had inserted the link but it looks like I managed to insert the video. Not sure how I did that!

 

Thank you for the link Peter, I am downloading the trial to see what it is like, I am not going to panic just yet as i do like FTM but it never hurts to have a back up just in case.

 

Come on everyone there are a lot of Lost Cousins out there who can help us to lobby Ancestry into at least sustaining shaking leaves and tree sync to all of us who are using FTM.
We haven't had the tree sync for long and we managed without it before. Having said that it is extremely useful for looking up things on a tab if you are researching at a record office.
I have had contact with far more of my remote family through using FTM/Ancestry than through Lost Cousins. (Sorry Peter)
I was at the presentation John Hanson gave in Portugal this year on using Family Historian and was impressed enough to purchase the software. However I need John to be sitting beside me to use it as it is not that straight forward when you are used to using another programme.
I have asked for the instruction manual for Christmas as Hubby objected to my suggestion of John moving in for a few months to help.
So lets all have a go at changing Ancestry's mind.
Contact them and give them your views

 

I don't think we'll change Ancestry's mind on this one, whatever we do. Basically that's because had they cared about their customers and users at all, they would have canvassed them before they made this decision. Clearly it is costing them too much to support and that's their main driver, although Peter does have a point about the possible security issues on the syncing.

What is interesting to me is that Ancestry don't value or seem to have no idea of the importance of the offline version and how it helps their online family tree members BUT also that some of us don't want to have our data online (I really don't trust them not to re-use it and don't they say they have the copyright on your family trees once they are uploaded?) and that's why we have an offline package. I have an app I regularly download the GEDCOM file from FTM so my family tree is portable so I don't NEED an online family tree. I understand that there are some advantages to having online family tree but I don't think those advantages outweigh the risks. I use lost cousins and forums to match with distant relatives so I don't see the need to use this method.

However, my view is that eventually the software will no longer work, either because you have had to update your operating system and it will no longer be compatible or your PC/laptop grinds to a halt and you can't then reinstall your current version on your next machine. So whatever happens, it is best that everyone looks for another product that they feel comfortable with, over the next year, so they don't get into a position that their family tree is not accessible.

As most people have said, it is personal choice to suit your own needs. As I was also at Genealogy in the Sunshine this year, I'm going to be veering towards Family Historian. The pitch from John gave me confidence that this product is well supported, if you have problems, easy to use, and also as it's produced by an English company, so I believe the UK locations are much better represented in this product. But I'm open to other people's views on what they have already observed so I will definitely be keeping an eye on this thread.

Good luck everyone!

 

That is precisely the point I make about the daunting task of trying a new genealogical program as we seek a format we instantly recognise and whose input and working is on a par with that used previously. As for needing an ...

(in lieu of an expert alongside as the posting amusingly suggests might be the better option)....then no way José; that would put the kybosh on the whole thing for me. If a program is not intuitive after half an hour (OK an hour) then sadly I would move on to another that was.

 

Earlier in the year I felt my Dell Lap Top was filling up with photographs and all my family history work. Having been persuaded to buy a Mac Desktop a few months ago I have been in the process of transferring info to my MAC. I was using FTM2011 and I purchased FTM3 for a Mac and it has been sitting on my new machine for about four months. The first thing I did was transfer my photograph files over to the Mac these also contain all FH files i.e. downloaded census's, photocopied certificates etc.. On my lap top I created folders for my families so moms side and dads side anything downloaded was put into these folders within in the the main family folder I had opened folders that say moms entered or dads entered this was telling me that I had added them to FTM. The first problem I have encountered is that all the photographs now on the Mac are in date order but not still sitting in their named folders anyone experienced with the Mac can you tell me do I have to recreate these folders again in the Mac.
Not being too computer literate I did not realise until reading through this forum that there is a Media file where all that was on FTM2011 is now still attached to the FTM3 on my Mac. I have looked at some of the images and some are very blurred so am going to have to delete them and find the original on the Mac but its not easy as they are not as I said earlier in their own folders.
I transferred my FTM files to a hard drive and also read that I needed to convert them to then copy them over to the Mac I am not sure I really needed to do that but the files seem to have copied over ok. I am doing all this first as a test.
Just wondering after reading all this about Ancestry is it worth moving everything. I do sometimes sync a tree of a friend of mine to Ancestry as he can then see what progress I have made as he lives miles away. I will not be able to do that anymore. Although I tick the box to say I don't want it to be in the Public area images can still be seen and used by the public which I have never been happy about.

 

On the same subject but a different point - I just had an email from a cousin who decided she would buy FTM before Dec 31st (date given by Ancestry for last sales) in order to be able to save a copy of the attached source media from her online tree. She found that she could not connect to the seller's site, so emailed Ancestry for advice.

What they have omitted to say in their wonderful retirement announcement on the blog, but glibly said in their reply to my cousin, is that you can't actually purchase FTM for Mac at all any more unless you live in the USA. "If there was anything else they could help her with"..... She was livid and is gutted that she will not be able to copy all her source images short of doing it one by one from her online tree.

 

Having used FTM since version 1.0 (mainly because I couldn't be bothered learning a new program), I was disappointed to hear that Ancestry will ditching it. From their point of view, it's likely all about money and convenience: theirs, not ours. Much cheaper to support the Web version than the desktop software, though I agree with Peter that there could be some security issues in the sync feature. Certainly they don't seem to care about loyalty to their loyal customers.

As has been mentioned already, this isn't the first time they have made changes without concern as to whether they were useful or helpful to users, and likely won't be the last, but this one really does seem to leave users in the lurch. In the responses to their blog announcement, the thing that seems to have upset most of those who left comments is the fact that the Web site doesn't give anywhere near the flexibility for sorting and printing reports that the desktop program does, and Ancestry doesn't seem to have any plans to improve this. Apparently everyone at Ancestry thinks on-line data is the be-all and end-all, and that no one ever needs to print anything.

What really upsets me about this announcement is the commonly-held (among software sellers at least) belief that everyone has unlimited access to the Internet. If like me, you live in a rural area of Canada, Internet access is often very slow, expensive, and intermittent. My sister lives in an area where the only access is by satellite service, and it's so slow that sometimes even e-mail times out before it sends; if there's a thunderstorm, they have no service. Ours is only marginally better. Many software sellers don't even make physical disc versions of their software any more, which puts it out of reach of users who don't have a reliable enough Internet service to download the program, let alone use on-line only versions of anything. Being in the minority, however, I suppose our rural difficulties don't cut much ice with people who have never left London or New York, and I doubt any of our protests will change their minds.

 

Funny I was going to say something like that (I might have given it a couple of minutes) but thought that would be met with derision, so opted for the more laid back half and hour to an hour; even though in truth I agree it should not take that long. Now here you are advocating 30 seconds? It takes me that time to ensure my glasses are in place and to scan the home page never mind decide if I want to delve further. But in the main I tend to agree it shouldn't take long.

 

Yes that is so, search result names that match -or purport to match - will be revealed for both Public and Private Trees. If the match is within a Public Tree and the details shown (including dates and location) appear to match, then you can opt to view the Tree and explore further; but remember living persons are not revealed. You can also of course use Ancestry message service to get in touch which I find most useful and have established many email connections this way.

If the name match is contained in a Private Tree (there may be location and dates to compare) no other information is given other than the Tree Owner's 'Ancestry' nom-de-plume. You then have the option to use Ancestry's message service to make contact. You will need to explain how you believe you may be connected and if the Tree Owner agrees they will invariably message back and you take it from there.

I have been given many 'Guest' permissions to view Trees, made friends -found cousins -and exchanged emails from contacts in both Public and Private Trees. Although to be fair the majority of contacts come via Public Trees as my own Trees are all Public.

 

Like many others I've been using FTM for many years. I have found it to generally meet my needs, particularly while I was still learning about family history research and the importance of documentation and source citation. I have taken occasional advantage of the research interaction with the Ancestry website. While the link is handy, you have to be careful, and it can be frustrating as the vast majority of the hints are to sources I've already identified. As many others have expressed, I have never been tempted to do my work on the online tree but have always kept all my work on my local computer using FTM, and then occasionally "synced" it up to the online tree. I see the value in the online tree as making my research available to relatives who may have a passing interest, and more importantly to finding distantly related people who can assist by providing clarification or new information to my research.

While I've been happy with FTM, I've also recognized that it's not the best software out there, and is missing many of the customization and add-on capabilities such as can be found in Family Historian, and up until recently in TMG. Among these capabilities are better, and more efficient, source citation. I've never been happy with the way my sources are structured in FTM, mostly because I learned as I was going along and could never bring myself to go back and redo the older entries.

A few years ago I looked at demo versions of several alternative packages, but came to the conclusion that the amount of work required to move my fairly substantial tree, and thousands of media images and source citations over to another package would be significantly more than I was prepared to undertake.

So now I'm now seeing this FTM retirment news as an opportunity. Yes, I could hang on to FTM for a few more years, but eventually I'll have to make a move. I would prefer do it methodically and thoughtfully starting now rather than all in a rush in a few years due to some unforseen looming dealine. I've pretty much decided to move to Family Historian, along with the seemingly invaluable Ancestral Sources add on. I understand the observation expressed here that it looks and feels different from FTM, but that's true of pretty much any change in software, and shouldn't detract from the fact that the capabilities of FH appear to offer greater potential and flexibility.

I've done an initial test transfer of my data using the GEDCOM file format, and can confirm that while all or most of my media images came across, they are now linked to individuals rather than to the sources. I am going to have to recreate a massive number of individual -> source -> media relationships, but as I noted above I'd been toying with the idea of doing this in any case. Fortunately I've kept a detailed research log in Excel, which will assist me through this process.

So my goal is to not only move to the better software package, but also to end up with a better family history archive/tree.