Family History software

[Alexander Bisset]

My XP never crashed, but unfortunately, I can't say the same for Win 7.

Odd Windows 7 is dramatically more stable for me than XP ever was. What sort of events are showing up in the event logs? Might be better to take this to email though rather than here.

 

[Bob Spiers]

.....
So if I can give one lifelong lesson to readers. NEVER EVER re-install windows to fix a problem it won't, and if you really must then ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS wipe the disk entirely before you start. Otherwise you are making things a lot worse..

I am puzzled Alexander and with great respect for your expertise I have lost count of the number of times I have performed a 'CLEAN' (re) install on my own and family PCs' (from XP onwards although not yet Windows 8(8.1)). It may be a last resort option -and over time as experience grows it has often been possible to get a PC working again without a re-install - but where all else has failed, it works just fine. The operative word is 'clean' where the drive(s) is/are formatted as part of the installation process. OK one needs to spend considerable time after re-installation to update Windows and check on drivers and such, but when this is achieved you are back in business again.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

The operative word here is clean install, completely re-formatting the disks. However its an absolute last resort solution, so much better to work out what the problem is and fix it rather than effectively sweeping it under the carpet and hoping it doesn't come back. Unfortunately my painful experience has shown that users get the false sense that when their computer does something wrong re-installing windows will fix it. Often that is shove the disk in and re-run the install on top of the old one. Rarely do people actually do clean installs as they want to keep their documents and photos etc. So they just make the problem worse.

There's also the whole issue of it being a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The big issue comes from lazy IT guys where "just" re-installing windows is an easier option to tell an end user than actually diagnosing a problem. Hence the general impression in the public's mind is that a re-install is a good thing

 

[sheelak]

I would recommend Family Historian 5 and these are my off-the-top-of-my-head reasons:

1. It's very thorough and encourages a disciplined approach, particularly for the recording of sources.
2. It's British - or certainly tailored for the British market - which I think is important if conducting UK research.
3. Unlike Legacy,which I used for a while, it doesn't bring up irritating links to other peoples spurious research online.
4. It's a standalone PC based system - not Cloud based, so I don't have the possibility of server crashes or, perhaps more likely, unexpected future charges or anything else that goes with lack of control.
5. It has good graphing.
6. Adding people and their connections is easy.
7. There is a knowledgeable user community and forum, some of whom are active in creating:
8. Add ons / plug-ins which extend the functionality.
9. It handles multi-media well, if you want to add pictures etc. I especially like the ability to link to faces in a group picture, keeping the picture intact.
10. I believe it's very customisable too - not that I've bothered with much of that, aside from some of the plugins.

I could go on. Since the early 1990s I've tried Brother's Keeper, The Master Genealogist (a good program, but I felt the authors struggled to adapt it to UK use, being a US program - is it still available ?) and latterly Legacy, but I feel most comfortable with Family Historian. Good value for money too.

I use Family Historian and have just upgraded to v.6. I am a bit confused because now many of my ancestors have a small circle with a number in it and it links to the MyHeritage site. Apparently my tree appears as part of several trees on this site. I do not remember registering on this site, although I know where the root came from - a very distant cousin in Australia. We exchanged information several years ago about an ancestor who was transported courtesy of HM, but a lot of my tree on MyHeritage which have the number shown are not connected to the Australian tree. I did not think I had shared my tree with her. The only online tree I have is Genesreunited. Did it come from there? It seems that V.6 now does what your point 3 said it didn't!

 

[Bob Spiers]

and it links to the MyHeritage site

WARNING BELLS ring for me (and many other on the Forum I am sure from past posts) when My Heritage (MH) crops up. The owners of MH have countless fingers in countless pies and perform Google like combings of many sites to bolster their huge My Heritage data base. I was caught out when my old and trusted Family Tree legends (FTL) now obsolete was bought by Gen Circles who it turned out were part of the MH family and so I suddenly found I had accidently become a MH member. It was free for a while and then as time went only by subscribing would it continue to function and allow contacts in the way it did when it was offered free. I kicked it into touch shortly after and I know many others who did the same.

I have to say in fairness that there are countless thousands who have elected to join MH and pay subscriptions and are quite happy in doing so and make many contacts as a result. MH claims -and I see no reason to doubt - that is has the largest FT database in the world. It may well have but I dislike its dubious practices of roping in unsuspecting members via takeovers of tried and trusted FT programs and surreptitiously raiding their online databases .

The only online tree I have is Genesreunited. Did it come from there

As far as I know Genesreunited protects its data bases, but it would not surprise me to know that MH has found a way around that. It is however more likely to be via Family Historian (FH) in much the same was as my Family Tree Legends. Check out if you are additionally saving to the internet (probably recommended as a means of a backup) and if so do your own backups and not on the web.

I note on the FH webpage there is an offer to get a third off if you sign up for MH. It also explains the green circles with numbers as being MH Hints. This tells me that even if innocently intended there is a tie in of sort between FH & MH and if you click on the circles you will be taken to a MH site. I think that says it all! Remember there is no such thing as a free lunch and if not already a subscriber to MH you need to ask for the al a carte menu Better still ignore the green circles.

 

[peter]

MyHeritage could have bought Genes Reunited's database, since when you upload your tree to Genes Reunited you give them permission to sell the data (or at least, you did when I last read the Ts & Cs).

But it's highly unlikely - I'm not aware that GR have ever sold on data. Far more likely, I'd have thought, is that someone you connected with on Genes Reunited has posted it at MyHeritage (or one of the sites they bought) themselves. That's how most family trees end up online inadvertently - people making assumptions that their relatives have the same privacy concerns as they do.

There is a wide range of privacy options at MyHeritage and Ancestry - anyone who uploads a tree directly, via Family Historian (MyHeritage), or via Family Tree Maker (Ancestry) should in my opinion ensure that their data is not publicly available. I would make it private but discoverable in searches, which is how it works at Genes Reunited.

 

[Bob Spiers]

In a way My Heritage is on the same quest as the LDS church before it; to bag and tag everyone in the world for the (so called) greater good; and in MH's case, make some money, which in itself is not a condemnation. Where would many of us be without good old Family Search or its forerunners IGI/Personal Ancestral File. Researching periods before 1837 the only other alternative was to wear out shoe leather, put in a lot of time a incur expenses. The web changed all that so we should be grateful I suppose to all providers of data bases that bring ancestral research to our desktops.

We will each guard our privacy in the way we think best and choose intellectually and pocket-wise with whom we subscribe. I personally dislike My Heritage because it is intrusive yet greatly enjoy Ancestry, and to a lesser extent Genes Reunited although still hold it in esteem for opening up online research to me years ago. Today although I still subscribe and periodically update my Tree, I use it rarely for research but find it still useful for occasional new contacts. I find I can make do with full subscriptions to both Ancestry & FMP and consider that money spent wisely.

 

[emjay]

Today although I still subscribe and periodically update my Tree, I use it rarely for research but find it still useful for occasional new contacts. I find I can make do with full subscriptions to both Ancestry & FMP and consider that money spent wisely

Same here

 

[peter]

I personally dislike My Heritage because it is intrusive

Tell me more - in what way is it intrusive? What should someone trying out the site beware of?

 

[Bob Spiers]

Tell me more - in what way is it intrusive? What should someone trying out the site beware of?

I thought I had covered this because -in my opinion at least - My Heritage (MH) ranks alongside the Spider within the cave that Frodo the Hobbit has to enter as told in (I think) the last book of the LOR trilogy. Instead of devouring people HR devours information to add to its ever growing database.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the principle upon which MH works and indeed much is good about it but its sole purpose seems to me to be to outstrip all competitors and widen its database regardless of quality of input. It will swallow companies to enable it to poach what others have spent hours compiling and invite those who register -regardless even of whether they subscribe -to add, add, add names; the more the merrier.

We all know, and have commented often, on some Ancestry Trees which are wishful thinking at best and rubbish at worst. I believe MH leaves Ancestry standing in this respect but that is really a gut feeling after spending time in contact with people with MH Trees, and those outside who have relayed information to me about the nonsense found within 'so-called' member contact Trees. I will leave it there for now and maybe explain some of its pitfalls in more detail later.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I will leave it there for now and maybe explain some of its pitfalls in more detail later.

Here are a few more comments on My Heritage as I think back over the time I was a subscriber:

Most people (not all of course) find out about My Heritage by the back door when they approach and say that totally free of charge they have incorporated your Family Tree (downloaded via a Gedcom without your permission) from xyz family tree site (which you have been using but probably did not know they were an associate MH site) and can be viewed and checked for matches with others.

You learn your free Basic site permits up to 250 names and 500MB storage. Within short time because of the handicaps deliberately built into the Basic package you will learn (and they will tell you often enough) you can overcome many of your problems by upgrading to a Premium or Premium Plus package at a 'modest' monthly cost. The most serious handicap (if the restriction on names is not in itself a handicap as it may not be for those new to setting up their Tree) is being unable to have a two way communication. Only subscribers can do this but, assuming you have subscribed and are about to explore the Smart Matches offered, here is how it will likely go.

A named person from your Tree is 'matched' with the same name in another Tree. I say the same name but take into count that is a loose analogy. Your John may be compared with James, Justin or just a J, or even a William John the permutations are endless. The other Tree owner will be under a pseudonym (as will you) and at this point you will learn they are likely residing in USA, Canada, Australia (the favourite by far) or New Zealand (a characteristic of MH is matches tend to be spread around the globe) although now and again you get a bonus finding out they too are from the UK (or wherever anyone happens to be located). The fun starts when you click on the ‘Match’ and you learn your 'match' is of a different generation; different origins with different family members – in short no match at all.

Here I should add a caveat that the other Family may well be legitimate in a first rate Tree just NOT a match in any way shape or form. On the other hand (and I could write much about this aspect) you recognise some of your family members with aunts, uncles, cousins you know nothing about. You get excited and explore further only to find the other Tree owner has just added people 'en passant'. You do not have 67 more relatives so quieten down and move on

Smart matching in MH is really a Lottery. You will occasionally find a match that is worth following up and that is nice as we all know but over time (and not that long and certainly within the first year of your subscription) you will become disenchanted. This will depend on experience to an extent but even the novice will reach that conclusion before long. There are obvious devotees, and I met a few, who believe everything they read in MH and will not have anything said against it. Your comments will not be welcome no matter what proofs you offer to back them up. Best outcome as the song of old says is to 'accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, but don't mess with mister in between'

 

[Bob Spiers]

There were a couple of good things that came from subscribing to MH. The first was when asked by my sister in Australia to add her son's wife (my nephew's wife) to the Tree and see if I could expand same as the children were being asked to provide a basic Family Tree for school. For this I needed to get information on their mother. She was born a 'Jolly' which as it turned out was quite a big family in Victoria, but not anywhere near as big as 'Humphrey' (yes a surname without an 's'). That was massive in every sense and her mother had in fact been a Humphrey.

At the time I was an MH subscriber and as my Tree expanded to include the Jolly/Humphrey connection I received an avalanche of matches. (Australia as I was to discover was awash with MH users). One in particular picked up on my Humphrey connection and as my subscription allowed connections via its messaging service, I learned that a lady not only was related a generation or so back from my nephew's wife (and knew her mother very well) she was indeed an expert on the great pioneering Humphrey family of Victoria. We swapped emails and I found her very knowledgeable indeed and as the Humphrey clan originated in England I was able to show its English origins. In the end I rejected more that I needed otherwise it would have taken over my Tree.

The second occasion was quite the reverse and began when I picked upon on a quite atrocious Tree (not related in any way to the previous story) but it did relate to an offshoot family of mine in England. The other Tree was a mixture of real, half real and fantasy family associations and I could not let it go without getting in touch. She (sadly another lady and yes from Australia) actually laughed off my comments and told me I was as bad as another person who had made contact with her from England. I cannot recall how she came to give me the email of the other person, but she did and I made contact with a man in Buckinghamshire. He too lamented the MH Tree and told me to totally disregard it as pure nonsense (a decision I had already made). To cut the story short we then began a two-way genealogical partnership of mutual benefit. I had slightly more online experience but he but he had visited many parish churches and archives and had a wealth of documentation. However the most important outcome of all was a mutual decision to drop My Heritage. I decision neither of us regretted though it was not just unsubscribing but getting MH to remove our data. That took quite some time and I will leave the telling of that for another day.

 

[Bob Spiers]

In a way My Heritage is on the same quest as the LDS church before it; to bag and tag everyone in the world for the (so called) greater good; and in MH's case, make some money, which in itself is not a condemnation

Having written of the similarity between My Heritage and the LDS church (i.e. Family Search) I learn that MH negotiated a 'strategic partnership' with LDS in 2013 allowing MH to swell their data base by "billions". By April 2014 MH boasted over 5 billion (note billion) -now nearly 6 billion - historical records. They also claim over 2 billion profiles (which I presume is members) MH is available in over 40 languages, so quite some feat!

As a result of the 'strategic partnership' LDS church members now have free access to My Heritage search facilities, just as they also have with both Ancestry & Findmypast.

 

[NicolaP]

I use Family Historian and have just upgraded to v.6. I am a bit confused because now many of my ancestors have a small circle with a number in it and it links to the MyHeritage site. Apparently my tree appears as part of several trees on this site. I do not remember registering on this site, although I know where the root came from - a very distant cousin in Australia. We exchanged information several years ago about an ancestor who was transported courtesy of HM, but a lot of my tree on MyHeritage which have the number shown are not connected to the Australian tree. I did not think I had shared my tree with her. The only online tree I have is Genesreunited. Did it come from there? It seems that V.6 now does what your point 3 said it didn't!

Calico Pie have an agreement with My Heritage to use MH data as "hints" within Family Historian v6. Unfortunately it is enabled by default on installation if you miss the tickbox in "Select Additional Tasks". There was a somewhat heated discussion about this on the Family Historian Users Group website around Christmas when the software was first released - . Even if you deselect the option as part of the install, it still installs but stays disabled. It can be disabled from within preferences. Have a read of the forum post as the details are there.

 

[Bob Spiers]

.... Even if you deselect the option as part of the install, it still installs but stays disabled. It can be disabled from within preferences.....

Have read the FHUG discussion I think that says everything about MH that I have been alluding to in my own posts. If they don't get in by the front door, be sure they will by the back, side or even a window. It's trying to find out how to escape their clutches where help is needed. Well done the FH Users Group.

 

[sheelak]

Thank you NicolaP I didn't see the deselecting option when I upgraded to V.6. I wasn't expecting it so didn't notice it. I have been on the FH forum and have been able to disable the MH link. Thanks for the help.

 

[raven]

Regarding My Heritage, I've come to pick some expert brains
I have a client I am doing research for (and with), and she has a subscription to MH so I've had to familiarise myself with it (I uploaded a gedcom for her there, originally) and saw that the Smart Matches feature could be useful to my own research (little else about that site seems to be, tbh) so I created branches & uploaded them into my own a/c. I had to wait a few days before the Smart Matches did their thing, but now I've got hundreds of potentials.....and cannot access a darned one of them because I only have the basic free subscription.

Now, because the Smart Match feature is really the only potentially good thing I've found about MH I am very reluctant to buy a subscription, let alone because its expensive (if they'd perhaps had a monthly option I'd have grabbed one to test-drive with). Sooooo, my question is - is there any cheaper work-around for getting in? Like when Peter has talked about buying the Ancestry program which came with a free 6 month subscription - something like that maybe?


On a side-whinge, I am finding their 'help desk' not so helpful in sorting issues. When I went to sign up to put on my trees I found I was already a member, thanks to a long-forgotten invite to a distant relative's tree, but because her subscription has lapsed I have extremely limited access to her tree site - i.e it hasn't even defaulted back to the free sub access, and it won't give me the option to click the box returning it to free access. Not that I NEED access to her site, its the principal of them fixing a problem.


Ideas appreciated.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

DO NOT GET SUCKED INTO BUYING AN MH SUBSCRIPTION. You WILL regret it.

Countless horror stories from that lot, basically the consensus is that they harvest tree data with little regard for content. They have NOTHING that isn't better on other sites.

 

[raven]

Thank you, I will bow to the expert advice.


Personally speaking, Ancestry is my favourite even though its not perfect either. I do like FMP for its access to the British Newspaper Archive, by which I found articles features several ancestors *bonus points*.

 

[chrissy1]

Not before time, I am looking for a replacement for Reunion for PC (available on floppy disc ca 1995-98) which must be extremely user-friendly and preferably similar to Reunion with

• easy navigation
• ability to see parents and children of a couple in the same frame
• the capacity to hold 15,000+names per tree
• ability to hold a number of different trees (currently 40 trees as I sometimes research for friends and record one name studies)
• ability to merge two trees if a link is found
• ability to link a person to 2 families in a tree (eg when cousins marry or families or an individual marries 2 sisters)
• ability to produce family reports from any source couple for a specific number of generations, with the option of including/excluding any notes/details entered.
• ability to show relationships to source person
• ability to attach notes

I assume all modern programs will create and import gedcoms and produce pedigree and descendant charts, though as I have a fairly large main tree, charts are not of paramount importance.


I have not yet mastered the art of attaching photos, census copies, wills or other original material to my tree or downloading/copying data from other elsewhere, but might wish to try in the future, so the process would need to be straightforward. I have never used any other FH program apart from Reunion or attempted to transfer my files by gedcom, so I am unaware of the difficulties I might encounter, but if possible I want to ensure that all the information which I have laboriously typed in under 'notes' (including census details) is not lost in transfer.


I am currently using Windows Vista and I have a worldwide subscription to Ancestry and basic Findmypast membership (though most of my lines are located in the UK), but although I favour Ancestry, I do not currently have an online tree.


Does anyone know if Reunion would still work with Windows 8 (or later version if there is one), in case I decide to update my computer before I have decided on a replacement for Reunion? (It still works with Windows 7….)


Everyone in this forum seems to be extremely knowledgeable technically , so please bear with me. I have no computer expertise whatsoever but I have been researching my family history for over 25 years, so I have plenty of data. I have read all the forum comments on various programs but if anyone can suggest which they think most suitable for my needs, I would be most grateful. It would also be helpful if there is a free trail available that anyone could direct me to. (I have been stung with fake websites in the past so am very wary of anything that isn't personally recommended, especially where personal data is concerned.)