I need a program opinion

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Two programs have been mentioned here recently, GenoPro and GenBox. I
usually try every program mentioned that I have not previously tried
but sooner or later that gets a bit tiresome.

At first glance the screen shots of GenoPro look far too "busy" - but
GenBox looks like it has real possibilities.

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?

Hugh

[john]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

Two programs have been mentioned here recently, GenoPro and GenBox. I
usually try every program mentioned that I have not previously tried
but sooner or later that gets a bit tiresome.

At first glance the screen shots of GenoPro look far too "busy" - but
GenBox looks like it has real possibilities.

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?

Hugh

You can try it yourself for free for 30 days http://www.genbox.com/
(Windows)

I use The Master Genealogist as my main genealogy program but I also use
Genbox for charting - specifically for "everyone in a database" charts
when it will happily generate a chart for several thousand individuals
("printed" to to a PDF file using very wide "paper"). In those charts
individuals don't have to be related so it is possible to have several
family trees on one chart.

I find the tabbed data entry screens look a bit fussy but it may be
because I've never used the program for data entry. Someone coming from
another program might not have the same problem.

I've noticed it doesn't always accept date fields in BROTHERS KEEPER
GEDCOM exports correctly - e.g. 31 Mar 1886 is converted to 31 A.D.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:33:29 +0100, john <[email protected]> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Two programs have been mentioned here recently, GenoPro and GenBox. I
usually try every program mentioned that I have not previously tried
but sooner or later that gets a bit tiresome.

At first glance the screen shots of GenoPro look far too "busy" - but
GenBox looks like it has real possibilities.

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?

Hugh

You can try it yourself for free for 30 days http://www.genbox.com/
(Windows)

I noticed that. Whether it is worth my effort is more of a concern
than $30.

I use The Master Genealogist as my main genealogy program but I also use
Genbox for charting - specifically for "everyone in a database" charts
when it will happily generate a chart for several thousand individuals
("printed" to to a PDF file using very wide "paper"). In those charts
individuals don't have to be related so it is possible to have several
family trees on one chart.

I think I would like that for a couple hundred in the db but several
thousand?

I find the tabbed data entry screens look a bit fussy but it may be
because I've never used the program for data entry. Someone coming from
another program might not have the same problem.

How about speed of opening and navigation. RM is fast but Legacy has
slowed considerably albeit excellent navigation.

I've noticed it doesn't always accept date fields in BROTHERS KEEPER
GEDCOM exports correctly - e.g. 31 Mar 1886 is converted to 31 A.D.

Ouch!

Thank you,

Hugh

[Lars Erik Bryld]

Scripsit J. Hugh Sullivan:

At first glance the screen shots of GenoPro look far too "busy" -
but GenBox looks like it has real possibilities.

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions? What
is good and what is almost intolerable?

I use Genbox, and it's practically perfect! It would do well getting
an interface overhaul, but v4 is in the works, so I'm quite confident
that quibble will resolve.

There are a few unexpected results from adding parents of a person.
Sometimes the linking gets a bit screwed up in the process, but it's
easily resolved, once you know how. Unfortunatly, the help file never
deals with such vital information, but the dedicated user group have
set up tutorials and the like.

The charts option is very good in my opinion.

GenoPro is not in its present incarnation a serious genealogy program,
but it seems a strong tool for mapping complex interindividual
relations.

--
Lars Erik Bryld

[john]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:33:29 +0100, john <[email protected]> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
Two programs have been mentioned here recently, GenoPro and GenBox. I
usually try every program mentioned that I have not previously tried
but sooner or later that gets a bit tiresome.

At first glance the screen shots of GenoPro look far too "busy" - but
GenBox looks like it has real possibilities.

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?

Hugh
You can try it yourself for free for 30 days http://www.genbox.com/
(Windows)

I noticed that. Whether it is worth my effort is more of a concern
than $30.

Well if you can really trust the opinion of others regardless the go for
it - but I wouldn't! I'm sure a quick download and an hour of play
should tell you whether it is worth investigating further.

I use The Master Genealogist as my main genealogy program but I also use
Genbox for charting - specifically for "everyone in a database" charts
when it will happily generate a chart for several thousand individuals
("printed" to to a PDF file using very wide "paper"). In those charts
individuals don't have to be related so it is possible to have several
family trees on one chart.

I think I would like that for a couple hundred in the db but several
thousand?

It works - I've tried other programs that haven't managed more than a
few hundred in a chart without memory/compute problems, etc.

I find the tabbed data entry screens look a bit fussy but it may be
because I've never used the program for data entry. Someone coming from
another program might not have the same problem.

How about speed of opening and navigation. RM is fast but Legacy has
slowed considerably albeit excellent navigation.

From my limited experience of opening and navigation I don't find any
significant difference between GenBox and TMG for navigation. GenBox
opens significantly faster than TMG (not that TMG is that slow).

I've noticed it doesn't always accept date fields in BROTHERS KEEPER
GEDCOM exports correctly - e.g. 31 Mar 1886 is converted to 31 A.D.

Ouch!

It has happened with files I have been sent by someone else. Taking the
file through other programs resolved the problem. I've not had any
problems with TMG exports.

Thank you,

Hugh

According to the user forum (and on Rootsweb) there is a new version
(v4) being developed so the current v3.6.5 won't be updated.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 21:33:38 +0100, Lars Erik Bryld
<[email protected]> wrote:

Scripsit J. Hugh Sullivan:

At first glance the screen shots of GenoPro look far too "busy" -
but GenBox looks like it has real possibilities.

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions? What
is good and what is almost intolerable?

I use Genbox, and it's practically perfect! It would do well getting
an interface overhaul, but v4 is in the works, so I'm quite confident
that quibble will resolve.

There are a few unexpected results from adding parents of a person.
Sometimes the linking gets a bit screwed up in the process, but it's
easily resolved, once you know how. Unfortunatly, the help file never
deals with such vital information, but the dedicated user group have
set up tutorials and the like.

The charts option is very good in my opinion.

Thank you. Apparently I tried the program sometime in the past. When I
installed the program this download it said my 30 days had expired.
But to their credit, they give one the opportunity to renew the 30
days, and I have so requested.

GenoPro is not in its present incarnation a serious genealogy program,
but it seems a strong tool for mapping complex interindividual
relations.

I agree.

Thank you,

Hugh

[Doug McDonald]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
\

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?

Charts are wonderful.

Data entry and general "feel" of user interface is so
awful as to render it unusable. Things have to be forced into
unnatural peg holes.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

john wrote:

I use The Master Genealogist as my main genealogy program but I also use
Genbox for charting - specifically for "everyone in a database" charts
when it will happily generate a chart for several thousand individuals
("printed" to to a PDF file using very wide "paper").

I tried Genbox for just this purpose. But I got bit
by its very strange structure. It just won't import
from Legacy in such a way that the charts look right.
It's bizarre. And if you try to correct the bizzareness,
the ultra-strange data entry jumps up and bites you.

It actually feels like it was designed to get around
some sort of patent on the natural method of data
entry used by most programs.

Doug McDonald

[Doug McDonald]

Lars Erik Bryld wrote:

There are a few unexpected results from adding parents of a person.

Yep, that among other very strange things.

Doug McDonald

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:21:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
\

Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?



Charts are wonderful.

Data entry and general "feel" of user interface is so
awful as to render it unusable. Things have to be forced into
unnatural peg holes.

Doug McDonald

I found a serious flaw for my purposes - others may not agree.

I reject a Descendant Narrative Report (my favorite) that is done by
generations. To follow a line you are constantly looking at the index.

There should be a narrative report in Outline Descendant Format. Not
having one makes the program unusable for me.

And pink for the background - yeah, I know the colors can be changed.

I thank everyone for the opinions.

Hugh

[Lars Erik Bryld]

Scripsit Doug McDonald:

There are a few unexpected results from adding parents of a person.

Yep, that among other very strange things.

Some of it apparently on purpose. The application tries to avoid
assumptions, and is designed to be able to contain conflicting data.
You can therefore assign two persons as parents to a person and later
add a birth event for the same person stating two apparently unrelated
persons as the parents. The problem appears in some of the overviews,
who will only display a correct childrens' list for the parents
assigned to the birth event, not the parents assigned through the
overview form.

--

Lars Erik Bryld

[john]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:21:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
\
Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?


Charts are wonderful.

Data entry and general "feel" of user interface is so
awful as to render it unusable. Things have to be forced into
unnatural peg holes.

Doug McDonald

I found a serious flaw for my purposes - others may not agree.

I reject a Descendant Narrative Report (my favorite) that is done by
generations. To follow a line you are constantly looking at the index.

There should be a narrative report in Outline Descendant Format. Not
having one makes the program unusable for me.

And pink for the background - yeah, I know the colors can be changed.

I thank everyone for the opinions.

Hugh

There are options in the Descendants Narrative report:
Descendants to follow All | Male only | Female only | Direct lineage
(you need to select two names).

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:44:22 +0100, john <[email protected]> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:21:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
\
Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?


Charts are wonderful.

Data entry and general "feel" of user interface is so
awful as to render it unusable. Things have to be forced into
unnatural peg holes.

Doug McDonald

I found a serious flaw for my purposes - others may not agree.

I reject a Descendant Narrative Report (my favorite) that is done by
generations. To follow a line you are constantly looking at the index.

There should be a narrative report in Outline Descendant Format. Not
having one makes the program unusable for me.

And pink for the background - yeah, I know the colors can be changed.

I thank everyone for the opinions.

Hugh

There are options in the Descendants Narrative report:
Descendants to follow All | Male only | Female only | Direct lineage
(you need to select two names).

I saw those options. But one of the bits of info stated that
Descendant Narrative Reports are in generation format only.

I note that most people I have seen use that format but I avoid it
like the plague. I want a report that reads continuously, not one
where you have to look at the index or skip a varying number of pages
to find the succession of generations in a family.

Thank you,

Hugh

[john]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 08:44:22 +0100, john <[email protected]> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:21:02 -0600, Doug McDonald
mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
\
Has anyone tried GenBox and, if so, what are your impressions?
What is good and what is almost intolerable?


Charts are wonderful.

Data entry and general "feel" of user interface is so
awful as to render it unusable. Things have to be forced into
unnatural peg holes.

Doug McDonald
I found a serious flaw for my purposes - others may not agree.

I reject a Descendant Narrative Report (my favorite) that is done by
generations. To follow a line you are constantly looking at the index.

There should be a narrative report in Outline Descendant Format. Not
having one makes the program unusable for me.

And pink for the background - yeah, I know the colors can be changed.

I thank everyone for the opinions.

Hugh
There are options in the Descendants Narrative report:
Descendants to follow All | Male only | Female only | Direct lineage
(you need to select two names).

I saw those options. But one of the bits of info stated that
Descendant Narrative Reports are in generation format only.

I note that most people I have seen use that format but I avoid it
like the plague. I want a report that reads continuously, not one
where you have to look at the index or skip a varying number of pages
to find the succession of generations in a family.

Thank you,

Hugh

I think I understand what you want and I think you would find you could
do what you want by modifying the content of the report to include or
exclude the information. There is a lot of functionality in the program
for designing reports but it takes some time to explore all
possibilities. Fortunately you can save each test report settings for
future reference/modification

[Kaye Payne]

Hi,

That is the sort of report that I want and I have been looking for it for
years. I have tried ooodles of programs and each one has a report that I
prefer for different things but not quite as I would like.

Family Historian has the best Descendant outline (something like you would
like) and I use it a lot but there could be a few improvements. My relatives
seem to be able to at least follow it and it has many options to spruce up
the report.

Kaye Payne

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:57:23 GMT, "Kaye Payne" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Hi,

That is the sort of report that I want and I have been looking for it for
years. I have tried ooodles of programs and each one has a report that I
prefer for different things but not quite as I would like.

Family Historian has the best Descendant outline (something like you would
like) and I use it a lot but there could be a few improvements. My relatives
seem to be able to at least follow it and it has many options to spruce up
the report.

Kaye Payne

My dilemma is that I have two programs I like very much. One is fast,
the other is slower. Navigation is better in the second. Both have
excellent User Groups and excellent support.

GEDs from one to the other vary only slightly but the variation is
unacceptable. One sources the name - the other transfers the name
source as "Unspecified". - wrong In both reports names are sourced.
It's as irritating as an itch you can't reach to scratch.

I'm satisfied with reports from either but I only export GEDs one
direction.

I'm not expecting to find a better program than either but I keep
looking. I've probably tried FH but I'll look again.

Hugh

[[email protected]]

On Jan 29, 3:14 pm, [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:

My dilemma is that I have two programs I like very much. One is fast,
the other is slower. Navigation is better in the second. Both have
excellent User Groups and excellent support.

GEDs from one to the other vary only slightly but the variation is
unacceptable. One sources the name - the other transfers the name
source as "Unspecified". - wrong In both reports names are sourced.
It's as irritating as an itch you can't reach to scratch.

I'm satisfied with reports from either but I only export GEDs one
direction.

I'm not expecting to find a better program than either but I keep
looking. I've probably tried FH but I'll look again.

Hugh

I'm looking for a program that can output the following type of report
(I call it an aboville decimal narrative descent):

Alexandrina Victoria Guelph
01. Victoria Adelaide Mary Louise Wettin
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01. Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert Hohenzollern
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01.01. Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor August Ernst Hohenzollern
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01.01.01. Living Hohenzollern
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01.01.01.01. Living Hohenzollern
(etc)
01.01.01.01.01.01. Living von Pressen
01.01.01.01.01.02. Living von Preussen
01.01.01.01.01.03. Living von Preussen
01.01.01.01.01.04. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.02.01. Living vom Preussen
01.01.01.01.02.02. Living von Preussen
01.01.01.01.03. Louis Ferdinand Oskar Christian Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.03.01. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.03.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.04. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.04.01. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.04.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.05. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.05.01. Living Oldenburg
01.01.01.01.05.02. Living Oldenburg
01.01.01.01.05.03. Living Oldenburg
01.01.01.01.06. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.06.01. Living Liepsner
01.01.01.01.07. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.07.01. Living Lithander
01.01.01.01.07.02. Living Lithander
01.01.01.02. Wilhelm Friedrich Franz Joseph Christian Olaf
Hohenzollern
01.01.01.02.01. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.02.01.01. Living von Nostitz-Wallwitz
01.01.01.02.01.02. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.01.02.01. Living von Reiche
01.01.01.02.01.03. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.01.04. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.01.05. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.03. Hubertus Karl Wilhelm Hohenzollern
01.01.01.04. Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Christoph Hohenzollern
01.01.01.05. Alexandrine Irene Hohenzollern
01.01.01.06. Cecilie Viktoria Anastasia Zita Thyra Adelheid
Hohenzollern
01.01.01.06.01. Living Harris
01.01.01.06.01.01. Living Johnson

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:14:27 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

My dilemma is that I have two programs I like very much. One is fast,
the other is slower. Navigation is better in the second. Both have
excellent User Groups and excellent support.

GEDs from one to the other vary only slightly but the variation is
unacceptable. One sources the name - the other transfers the name
source as "Unspecified". - wrong In both reports names are sourced.
It's as irritating as an itch you can't reach to scratch.

I'm satisfied with reports from either but I only export GEDs one
direction.

I'm not expecting to find a better program than either but I keep
looking. I've probably tried FH but I'll look again.

Hugh

Hugh,

Just wondering... have you tried using GEDCOM Explorer to "tweak" the
GEDCOMS between transferring from one program to the other? I think
Gary Bonham made some significant progress with his software before
his untimely death. There are a few people who are still finding uses
for the program... and it sounds as if your situation might be an
application. Unfortunately, you have to be a bit of a GEDCOM guru to
really make use of all the features of the program, since you have to
create macros to make significant changes to the structure.... but
once created, it's a breeze to convert GEDCOMs from one genealogy
program to "fit" another one.




Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:21:35 -0600, Charlie Hoffpauir
<[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 21:14:27 GMT, [email protected] (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:



My dilemma is that I have two programs I like very much. One is fast,
the other is slower. Navigation is better in the second. Both have
excellent User Groups and excellent support.

GEDs from one to the other vary only slightly but the variation is
unacceptable. One sources the name - the other transfers the name
source as "Unspecified". - wrong In both reports names are sourced.
It's as irritating as an itch you can't reach to scratch.

I'm satisfied with reports from either but I only export GEDs one
direction.

I'm not expecting to find a better program than either but I keep
looking. I've probably tried FH but I'll look again.

Hugh

Hugh,

Just wondering... have you tried using GEDCOM Explorer to "tweak" the
GEDCOMS between transferring from one program to the other? I think
Gary Bonham made some significant progress with his software before
his untimely death. There are a few people who are still finding uses
for the program... and it sounds as if your situation might be an
application. Unfortunately, you have to be a bit of a GEDCOM guru to
really make use of all the features of the program, since you have to
create macros to make significant changes to the structure.... but
once created, it's a breeze to convert GEDCOMs from one genealogy
program to "fit" another one.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

I'm not familiar with the program. I'm not very handy with macros
and/or programming - it's a real effort for me to attain any level of
expertise in the area. I used to say I was logical until I met a
computer.

I think I demand too much organization and consistency from a program.
And it seems to me that GEDCOMS should be fool proof between programs.

I may see if I can find the program and learn what the possibilities
are.

Thank you, Charlie,

Hugh

[john]

[email protected] wrote:

I'm looking for a program that can output the following type of report
(I call it an aboville decimal narrative descent):

Alexandrina Victoria Guelph
01. Victoria Adelaide Mary Louise Wettin
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01. Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albert Hohenzollern
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01.01. Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor August Ernst Hohenzollern
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01.01.01. Living Hohenzollern
(Individual narrative goes here)
01.01.01.01.01. Living Hohenzollern
(etc)
01.01.01.01.01.01. Living von Pressen
01.01.01.01.01.02. Living von Preussen
01.01.01.01.01.03. Living von Preussen
01.01.01.01.01.04. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.02.01. Living vom Preussen
01.01.01.01.02.02. Living von Preussen
01.01.01.01.03. Louis Ferdinand Oskar Christian Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.03.01. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.03.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.04. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.04.01. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.04.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.05. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.05.01. Living Oldenburg
01.01.01.01.05.02. Living Oldenburg
01.01.01.01.05.03. Living Oldenburg
01.01.01.01.06. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.06.01. Living Liepsner
01.01.01.01.07. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.01.07.01. Living Lithander
01.01.01.01.07.02. Living Lithander
01.01.01.02. Wilhelm Friedrich Franz Joseph Christian Olaf
Hohenzollern
01.01.01.02.01. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.02.01.01. Living von Nostitz-Wallwitz
01.01.01.02.01.02. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.01.02.01. Living von Reiche
01.01.01.02.01.03. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.01.04. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.01.05. Living von der Osten
01.01.01.02.02. Living Hohenzollern
01.01.01.03. Hubertus Karl Wilhelm Hohenzollern
01.01.01.04. Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Christoph Hohenzollern
01.01.01.05. Alexandrine Irene Hohenzollern
01.01.01.06. Cecilie Viktoria Anastasia Zita Thyra Adelheid
Hohenzollern
01.01.01.06.01. Living Harris
01.01.01.06.01.01. Living Johnson

Several genealogy programs will generate output in d'Aboville format.
However, I doubt any will include the leading zero - but you could add
those with a macro.